4 ms·

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.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > . 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. This article is literally about the copyright office finding AI companies violating copyright law by training their models on copyrighted material. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        The Copyright Office is not an authority in this context, it's just an opinion. They did not make any "finding". To a judge they may as well be any other amicus curiae. My opinion on the matter at hand is this: Artists who complain about GenAI use the hypothetical that you mentioned, where if you can accurately recreate a copyrighted work through specific model usage, then any distribution of the model is a copyright violation. That's why, according to the argument, fair use does not apply. The real problem with that is that there's a mismatch between the fair use analysis and the actual use at issue. The complaining artists want the fair use inquiry to focus on the damage to the potential market to works in their particular style. That's where the harm is according to them. However, what they use to even get into that stage is the copyright infringement allegation that I described earlier: that the models contain their works on a fixed manner which can be derived without permission. Not to mention the fact that this position means putting the malicious usage of the models for outright copyright infringement at the output level above the entire class of new works that can be created by its usage. It's effectively saying "because these models can technically be used in an infringing way, it infringes our copyright and any creative potential that these models could help with are insignificant in comparison to that simple fact. Of course, that's not the actual real problem, which is that they output completely new works that compete with our originals, even when they aren't derivatives of, nor substantially similar to, any individual copyrighted work". Here's a very good article outlining my position in a more articulate way: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art

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.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > . 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. This article is literally about the copyright office finding AI companies violating copyright law by training their models on copyrighted material. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        The Copyright Office is not an authority in this context, it's just an opinion. They did not make any "finding". To a judge they may as well be any other amicus curiae. My opinion on the matter at hand is this: Artists who complain about GenAI use the hypothetical that you mentioned, where if you can accurately recreate a copyrighted work through specific model usage, then any distribution of the model is a copyright violation. That's why, according to the argument, fair use does not apply. The real problem with that is that there's a mismatch between the fair use analysis and the actual use at issue. The complaining artists want the fair use inquiry to focus on the damage to the potential market to works in their particular style. That's where the harm is according to them. However, what they use to even get into that stage is the copyright infringement allegation that I described earlier: that the models contain their works on a fixed manner which can be derived without permission. Not to mention the fact that this position means putting the malicious usage of the models for outright copyright infringement at the output level above the entire class of new works that can be created by its usage. It's effectively saying "because these models can technically be used in an infringing way, it infringes our copyright and any creative potential that these models could help with are insignificant in comparison to that simple fact. Of course, that's not the actual real problem, which is that they output completely new works that compete with our originals, even when they aren't derivatives of, nor substantially similar to, any individual copyrighted work". Here's a very good article outlining my position in a more articulate way: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art