5 ms·

Massive, industrial scale copyright infringement

anigbrowl 2y ago
Japanese firms take copyright pretty seriously, and Miyazaki is famously not a fan of CG or automation or indeed the US. I suspect lawsuits will not be long in coming.
- pnw 2y ago
  Apparently current Japanese law allows models to be trained on copyrighted content. https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-explained/ https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-exp...
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Such a law doesn't automatically imply that everything a model outputs is automatically copyright free though, does it? Otherwise: Meet my new and surprisingly performant new model, IdentityFunctionGPT! Oh, the weights? Sorry, trade secret.
    - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      I don't know, I'm no lawyer. However, if I make a drawing in the style of Ghibli, I own the copyright because I made it. I don't know if in Japan, art style is copyrightable. I don't know if copyright applies to generated content (of any sort) though. It probably does.
      - lxgr 2y ago
        The important question here isn't who owns the copyright in the output, but rather whether the output also infringes on somebody else's, and if so, who's liable for that: The company that trained the AI, the one that hosts it as a service, or the user that prompted it.
- hiccuphippo 2y ago
  On the other hand, Japan pretty much ignores the amateur comics community using copyrighted works for their fan fiction. Even when they have big, well known, events where they sell the comics.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    There's an industry consensus to leave it alone in most* cases, since it is considered to expand the total manga market and generate new talent. Micro-publishers are very different from megacorporations, though. * Unsurprisingly a famous exception involves Nintendo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_doujinshi_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_doujinshi_inciden...
  - numpad0 2y ago
    There's a unwritten framework regulating it, unwritten but enforced by selective C&D. I think that's how a lot of industries work anyway, see Oracle v. Google drama on use of Java in Android.
falcor84 2y ago
IANAL but artistic style is not copyrightable. Many many human artists have created images and animated films in the style of Ghibli or Disney or Pixar and there's no direct copyright issue there.
- iszomer 2y ago
  Yeah but humans aren't exactly fast at replicating any particular art style.
  - catach 2y ago
    Speed of replication isn't a part of copyright law, is it?
    - iszomer 2y ago
      Nope. But I do feel bad for partaking in part for Louis CK's Twitter-Jesus rant. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSDeesUUsU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSDeesUUsU
    - SirMaster 2y ago
      No, but I have to wonder if the reason it isn't is because up until now it was so slow and time consuming etc to create a replication.
  - throwuxiytayq 2y ago
    Should I be concerned about my drawing speed lest it qualifies as copyright informant?
- conartist6 2y ago
  Maaybe, but you'd also have to pass the three-prong test of fair use, and one of the prongs of the test is that your fair use of the material can't eliminate the market for the original material. I fail to see how taking a distinctive artistic style that was incredibly difficult to produce and shitting out massive amounts of it everywhere as a super low quality commodity would pass the test of fair use.
trealira 2y ago
Not a lawyer, but I don't think art styles are copyrightable, though maybe they could be in Japan.
- epolanski 2y ago
  Unlikely since there's a studio led by a former ghibli lead that does visuals in the very same style.
- conartist6 2y ago
  That feels like an omission in the law. Previously it was simply impossible to "take" a style wholesale. You would at least have to become an artist versed in that style, and it in investing your life into that style you would also make it yours. AI can take a whole style wholesale with no effort and no contribution. It is greivous theft in the moral sense if not the legal sense.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- doright 2y ago
  There were some AI training exceptions passed in Japan if I recall correctly, but with the copyright culture in Japan lacking anything resembling fair use, there was pretty much zero chance something like Stable Diffusion could have been built and proliferated in such a culture. Those AI laws seem pretty reactionary to the West's innovations to stay relevant in my view.
TheRealQueequeg 2y ago
IMO, massive industrial scale indignation of humanity.
jMyles 2y ago
...perhaps this is what it takes to finally end the farcical narrative of "intellectual property" and usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge.
- krapp 2y ago
  The copyright infringement is on the part of the models being trained on Studio Ghibli's work without permission. There's no law against you "accessing the entire corpus of evolved knowledge" and doing the work yourself.
- aredox 2y ago
  Yeah, and culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return. >usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge We have had that for decades and everything is going to shit. People now just reject facts.
  - anhner 2y ago
    > culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return. right, because before copyright laws nobody ever created anything...
    - aredox 2y ago
      Then why were copyright laws created immediately after the advent of the printing press? One wonders...
      - danielbln 2y ago
        Yes, immediately, just a short three hundred years later (printing press 1440, first copyright law 1710). And if you look into that law (Statute of Anne) then you will find that poor hardworking authors where not exactly on the receiving end of that protection.
karel-3d 2y ago
Style is not copyrightable. Marvin Gaye estate tried to argue that style is copyrightable, and sued some artists as their songs use similar chord progressions as Marvin Gaye songs; they won one case (which I won't google) but they lost with Sheeran.
- tgv 2y ago
  In music, copyright is (relatively) clearly defined: it's the melody. You can't touch that. There are also reproduction rights, which protect the (recorded) performance, even if the music's copyright belongs to someone else.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
It's not copyright infringement / not illegal if it's legal and / or there's an exception for "information analysis": https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guidelines-on-ai-and-copyright-is-it-really-ok-to-train-ai-using-pirated-materials/ https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guide... This is the tricky part; is it immoral? I think so, but that's a personal opinion. Is it illegal? Not by Japanese copyright laws.
frankzander 2y ago
Infact it isn't the style which has been copyright infringed but the original works which had been fed into the Neuronal networks in order to learn how to produce such works. There is no consent from the authors. I'm not a fighter copyright but if someone makes money from someone others work than the author should be compensated. The AI industry is standing on the shoulders of giants and make a lot of money. If the authors had been asked beforehand if their works could be use to train NN than I'm sure this whole AI blubble is has burst long time ago.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
Good. Down with intellectual "property." Ideas are gifts from the divine, meant for self-propagation.

Japanese firms take copyright pretty seriously, and Miyazaki is famously not a fan of CG or automation or indeed the US. I suspect lawsuits will not be long in coming.

pnw 2y ago
Apparently current Japanese law allows models to be trained on copyrighted content. https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-explained/ https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-exp...
- lxgr 2y ago
  Such a law doesn't automatically imply that everything a model outputs is automatically copyright free though, does it? Otherwise: Meet my new and surprisingly performant new model, IdentityFunctionGPT! Oh, the weights? Sorry, trade secret.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    I don't know, I'm no lawyer. However, if I make a drawing in the style of Ghibli, I own the copyright because I made it. I don't know if in Japan, art style is copyrightable. I don't know if copyright applies to generated content (of any sort) though. It probably does.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      The important question here isn't who owns the copyright in the output, but rather whether the output also infringes on somebody else's, and if so, who's liable for that: The company that trained the AI, the one that hosts it as a service, or the user that prompted it.
hiccuphippo 2y ago
On the other hand, Japan pretty much ignores the amateur comics community using copyrighted works for their fan fiction. Even when they have big, well known, events where they sell the comics.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  There's an industry consensus to leave it alone in most* cases, since it is considered to expand the total manga market and generate new talent. Micro-publishers are very different from megacorporations, though. * Unsurprisingly a famous exception involves Nintendo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_doujinshi_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_doujinshi_inciden...
- numpad0 2y ago
  There's a unwritten framework regulating it, unwritten but enforced by selective C&D. I think that's how a lot of industries work anyway, see Oracle v. Google drama on use of Java in Android.

falcor84 2y ago

IANAL but artistic style is not copyrightable. Many many human artists have created images and animated films in the style of Ghibli or Disney or Pixar and there's no direct copyright issue there.

iszomer 2y ago
Yeah but humans aren't exactly fast at replicating any particular art style.
- catach 2y ago
  Speed of replication isn't a part of copyright law, is it?
  - iszomer 2y ago
    Nope. But I do feel bad for partaking in part for Louis CK's Twitter-Jesus rant. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSDeesUUsU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSDeesUUsU
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    No, but I have to wonder if the reason it isn't is because up until now it was so slow and time consuming etc to create a replication.
- throwuxiytayq 2y ago
  Should I be concerned about my drawing speed lest it qualifies as copyright informant?
conartist6 2y ago
Maaybe, but you'd also have to pass the three-prong test of fair use, and one of the prongs of the test is that your fair use of the material can't eliminate the market for the original material. I fail to see how taking a distinctive artistic style that was incredibly difficult to produce and shitting out massive amounts of it everywhere as a super low quality commodity would pass the test of fair use.

trealira 2y ago

Not a lawyer, but I don't think art styles are copyrightable, though maybe they could be in Japan.

epolanski 2y ago
Unlikely since there's a studio led by a former ghibli lead that does visuals in the very same style.
conartist6 2y ago
That feels like an omission in the law. Previously it was simply impossible to "take" a style wholesale. You would at least have to become an artist versed in that style, and it in investing your life into that style you would also make it yours. AI can take a whole style wholesale with no effort and no contribution. It is greivous theft in the moral sense if not the legal sense.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
doright 2y ago
There were some AI training exceptions passed in Japan if I recall correctly, but with the copyright culture in Japan lacking anything resembling fair use, there was pretty much zero chance something like Stable Diffusion could have been built and proliferated in such a culture. Those AI laws seem pretty reactionary to the West's innovations to stay relevant in my view.

TheRealQueequeg 2y ago

IMO, massive industrial scale indignation of humanity.

jMyles 2y ago

...perhaps this is what it takes to finally end the farcical narrative of "intellectual property" and usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge.

krapp 2y ago
The copyright infringement is on the part of the models being trained on Studio Ghibli's work without permission. There's no law against you "accessing the entire corpus of evolved knowledge" and doing the work yourself.
aredox 2y ago
Yeah, and culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return. >usher in an internet age where everybody can access the entire corpus of evolved knowledge We have had that for decades and everything is going to shit. People now just reject facts.
- anhner 2y ago
  > culture will stagnate forever at the 2020 mark, as nobody in his right mind will create anything new only to be immediatly copied without anything in return. right, because before copyright laws nobody ever created anything...
  - aredox 2y ago
    Then why were copyright laws created immediately after the advent of the printing press? One wonders...
    - danielbln 2y ago
      Yes, immediately, just a short three hundred years later (printing press 1440, first copyright law 1710). And if you look into that law (Statute of Anne) then you will find that poor hardworking authors where not exactly on the receiving end of that protection.

karel-3d 2y ago

Style is not copyrightable. Marvin Gaye estate tried to argue that style is copyrightable, and sued some artists as their songs use similar chord progressions as Marvin Gaye songs; they won one case (which I won't google) but they lost with Sheeran.

tgv 2y ago
In music, copyright is (relatively) clearly defined: it's the melody. You can't touch that. There are also reproduction rights, which protect the (recorded) performance, even if the music's copyright belongs to someone else.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

It's not copyright infringement / not illegal if it's legal and / or there's an exception for "information analysis": https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guidelines-on-ai-and-copyright-is-it-really-ok-to-train-ai-using-pirated-materials/ https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guide... This is the tricky part; is it immoral? I think so, but that's a personal opinion. Is it illegal? Not by Japanese copyright laws.

frankzander 2y ago

Infact it isn't the style which has been copyright infringed but the original works which had been fed into the Neuronal networks in order to learn how to produce such works. There is no consent from the authors. I'm not a fighter copyright but if someone makes money from someone others work than the author should be compensated. The AI industry is standing on the shoulders of giants and make a lot of money. If the authors had been asked beforehand if their works could be use to train NN than I'm sure this whole AI blubble is has burst long time ago.

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

Good. Down with intellectual "property." Ideas are gifts from the divine, meant for self-propagation.