4 ms·

> I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the

> I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet. I think most artist who had their works "trained by AI" without compensation would disagree with you.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perceived abstract unfairness of the situation, where the AI companies aren't copy-pasting the works per-se with each generation, but rather "taking" the "sweat of the brow" of those artists. You can agree or not about this being an actual problem, but that's where the main claim is.
- wnevets 1y ago
  > would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
  - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
    - wnevets 1y ago
      Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
      - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
        All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws. All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws. Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        My point is that the kind of IP at issue in this post and discussion is copyright, not personality rights. If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art.
gruez 1y ago
Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example
- hulitu 1y ago
  > Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?
  - gruez 1y ago
    arguably different from both, because you microsoft could say it's a trade secret. Note I'm not claiming that because it's different, it must be okay, just that it's unfair to compare torrenting with AI training.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
I think most people who had even basic understanding how AI works would disagree with you.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago

The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perceived abstract unfairness of the situation, where the AI companies aren't copy-pasting the works per-se with each generation, but rather "taking" the "sweat of the brow" of those artists. You can agree or not about this being an actual problem, but that's where the main claim is.

wnevets 1y ago
> would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
  - wnevets 1y ago
    Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
    - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
      That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
      - wnevets 1y ago
        > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
        All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws. All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws. Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        My point is that the kind of IP at issue in this post and discussion is copyright, not personality rights. If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art.

gruez 1y ago

Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example

hulitu 1y ago
> Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?
- gruez 1y ago
  arguably different from both, because you microsoft could say it's a trade secret. Note I'm not claiming that because it's different, it must be okay, just that it's unfair to compare torrenting with AI training.

TiredOfLife 1y ago

I think most people who had even basic understanding how AI works would disagree with you.