3 ms·

For those who have used the image generation models and even the text models to create things, there is no way you can look at the Disney-look-alike images and

For those who have used the image generation models and even the text models to create things, there is no way you can look at the Disney-look-alike images and NOT see that as copyright infringement...

ranger_danger 2y ago
I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing. Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI. In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation. So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.
nomdep 2y ago
IANAL but for copyright infringement you have to distribute it, and AI image generation is like asking someone to paint a cartoon mouse in a wall of your living room
- Xelynega 2y ago
  Is it not more like lossy image decompression? Just because the jpeg you're distributing isn't the same bytes as the one I have copyright to doesn't mean you're not infringing my copyright. You're still taking my copyrighted image, running it through an algorithm, and then distributing the results.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  AI generation is also like asking a professional to design a logo for your corporation. It all matters what the license you are getting to the outputs. If the Image Generator is saying that outputs from their service can be used for commercial purposes, it isnt like your example at all.

ranger_danger 2y ago

I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing. Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI. In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation. So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.

nomdep 2y ago

IANAL but for copyright infringement you have to distribute it, and AI image generation is like asking someone to paint a cartoon mouse in a wall of your living room

Xelynega 2y ago
Is it not more like lossy image decompression? Just because the jpeg you're distributing isn't the same bytes as the one I have copyright to doesn't mean you're not infringing my copyright. You're still taking my copyrighted image, running it through an algorithm, and then distributing the results.
nickthegreek 2y ago
AI generation is also like asking a professional to design a logo for your corporation. It all matters what the license you are getting to the outputs. If the Image Generator is saying that outputs from their service can be used for commercial purposes, it isnt like your example at all.