3 ms·

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI

This actually looks pretty good. The key takeaway I got was that they know their business is dependent upon Intellectual Property rights, and that Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights. That’s likely to be the middle ground going forward for the smarter creative companies, and I’m personally all for it. Sure, use it for a pitch, or a demo, or a test - but once there’s money on the line (copyright in particular), get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else.

amelius 1y ago
> get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.
- higginsniggins 1y ago
  Any one with a brain knows it is not stolen, but nevertheless the fact that people will claim so is a risk.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    It is stolen on a cultural level at least. But since many of these models will blurt out very obviously infringing material without targeted prompting, it’s also an active, continuous thief.
- bjt 1y ago
  It's partly about Netflix getting sued by someone claiming infringement, but also partly (maybe mostly) about Netflix maintaining their right to sue others for infringement. The scenario looks like this: * Be Netflix. Own some movie or series where the main elements (plot, characters, setting) were GenAI-created. * See someone else using your plot/characters/setting in their own for-profit works. * Try suing that someone else for copyright infringement. * Get laughed out of court because the US Copyright Office has already said that GenAI is not copyrightable. [1] [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
  - babyshake 1y ago
    This scenario only plays out if it is known what was or wasn't made with GenAI.
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      It would become known during discovery.
      - amelius 1y ago
        How can you find out if an AI created something versus a human with a pixel editor?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        In a legal case? You question the authors under oath, subpoena communications records, billing records, etc. If there's even a hint that you used AI output in the work and you failed to disclose it to the US Copyright Office, they can cancel your registration.
  - Bombthecat 1y ago
    You need to say you improved on the work of AI and it's yours. Now you can sue
- TheRoque 1y ago
  Are you kidding me ? Everyone knows it's pirated content (aka stealing), there are a ton of proofs here and there: - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-over-81-7tb-of-pirated-books-to-train-ai-authors-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o... - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-risks-billions-as-court-weighs-privilege-in-copyright-row https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-risks-billions-a... Other than that, just a bit of common sense tells you all you need to know about where the data comes from (datasets never released, outputs of the LLMs suspisciously close to original copyrighted content, AI founders openly saying that paying for copyrighted content is too costly etc. etc. etc.)
AmbroseBierce 1y ago
Or they can do like Call of duty, that just makes skins "heavily inspired" by other franchises they don't own, the week Borderlands 4 came out they put a few cell shaded skins that heavily resembles the look of that game's characters, there is one that skin that is pretty much like reptile from mortal Kombat called "vibrant serpent", they got a bit of heat in May of this year for releasing a skin that looked too much like one from another game called High On Life, and the list goes on. It reminds me a lot of the disguises they sell on Spirit Halloween during every October. And yes I know they do legal and agreed partnerships like with the Predator franchise, or the Beavis and Butt-Head franchise (yes they exist in CoD now...), and those only count for a tiny number of the premium skins.
- p1necone 1y ago
  The Call of Duty series makes me so sad. I remember when cod 4 came out it felt like a genuinely groundbreaking and innovative thing and I was so pumped to see what IW did next. And then Activision took all of that talent that was genuinely exploring new ground in game development and stuck them in the yearly rerelease of the same damn game mill until everyone got burnt out and left.
  - AmbroseBierce 1y ago
    Not me, the mix of parkour with multiplayer shooting with beautiful highly detailed maps it's something I like a lot, nothing even compares in that regard, I know the game is a shameless skin store but I do appreciate the former, although I also hate how small a lot of maps are, glances at Nuketown
    - p1necone 1y ago
      They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall, which was made by the original IW founders when they left and founded Respawn ;) (I use "stole" in a non derogatory way here - 90% of good game design is cribbing together stuff that worked elsewhere in a slightly new form)
doctorpangloss 1y ago
Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.
  - danielbln 1y ago
    Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.
    - exasperaited 1y ago
      AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it. Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.
      - alickz 1y ago
        >AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. AI is just a wrapper around a tool - it doesn't need intention or creativity because those come from the user in the form of prompts (which are by definition intentional) It's just a Natural Language Interface for calling CLI tools mostly, just like how GUIs are just graphical interfaces for calling CLI tools, but no one thinks a GUI has no intentionality or creativity even when using stochastic/probabilistic tools Anything a user can do with an AI they could also do with a GUI, it would just take longer and more practice >Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. But then how do you know something is slop before you know if it's made with GenAI? Does all art exist as Schrodinger's Slop until you can prove GenAI was used? (if that's even possible)
DebtDeflation 1y ago
> Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights It goes beyond just IP law compliance. Creativity is their core competency and competitive differentiator. If you replace that with AI slop, then your product becomes almost indistinguishable from that of everyone else producing AI slop. IMO, they're striking exactly the right balance - use AI as a creative aid and productivity booster not something to make the critical aspects of the final product.

amelius 1y ago

> get that shit outta there because we can’t own something we stole from someone else How does anyone prove it though? You can say "does that matter?" but once everybody starts doing it, it becomes a different story.

higginsniggins 1y ago
Any one with a brain knows it is not stolen, but nevertheless the fact that people will claim so is a risk.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  It is stolen on a cultural level at least. But since many of these models will blurt out very obviously infringing material without targeted prompting, it’s also an active, continuous thief.
bjt 1y ago
It's partly about Netflix getting sued by someone claiming infringement, but also partly (maybe mostly) about Netflix maintaining their right to sue others for infringement. The scenario looks like this: * Be Netflix. Own some movie or series where the main elements (plot, characters, setting) were GenAI-created. * See someone else using your plot/characters/setting in their own for-profit works. * Try suing that someone else for copyright infringement. * Get laughed out of court because the US Copyright Office has already said that GenAI is not copyrightable. [1] [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- babyshake 1y ago
  This scenario only plays out if it is known what was or wasn't made with GenAI.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    It would become known during discovery.
    - amelius 1y ago
      How can you find out if an AI created something versus a human with a pixel editor?
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        In a legal case? You question the authors under oath, subpoena communications records, billing records, etc. If there's even a hint that you used AI output in the work and you failed to disclose it to the US Copyright Office, they can cancel your registration.
- Bombthecat 1y ago
  You need to say you improved on the work of AI and it's yours. Now you can sue
TheRoque 1y ago
Are you kidding me ? Everyone knows it's pirated content (aka stealing), there are a ton of proofs here and there: - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-over-81-7tb-of-pirated-books-to-train-ai-authors-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o... - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-risks-billions-as-court-weighs-privilege-in-copyright-row https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-risks-billions-a... Other than that, just a bit of common sense tells you all you need to know about where the data comes from (datasets never released, outputs of the LLMs suspisciously close to original copyrighted content, AI founders openly saying that paying for copyrighted content is too costly etc. etc. etc.)

AmbroseBierce 1y ago

Or they can do like Call of duty, that just makes skins "heavily inspired" by other franchises they don't own, the week Borderlands 4 came out they put a few cell shaded skins that heavily resembles the look of that game's characters, there is one that skin that is pretty much like reptile from mortal Kombat called "vibrant serpent", they got a bit of heat in May of this year for releasing a skin that looked too much like one from another game called High On Life, and the list goes on. It reminds me a lot of the disguises they sell on Spirit Halloween during every October. And yes I know they do legal and agreed partnerships like with the Predator franchise, or the Beavis and Butt-Head franchise (yes they exist in CoD now...), and those only count for a tiny number of the premium skins.

p1necone 1y ago
The Call of Duty series makes me so sad. I remember when cod 4 came out it felt like a genuinely groundbreaking and innovative thing and I was so pumped to see what IW did next. And then Activision took all of that talent that was genuinely exploring new ground in game development and stuck them in the yearly rerelease of the same damn game mill until everyone got burnt out and left.
- AmbroseBierce 1y ago
  Not me, the mix of parkour with multiplayer shooting with beautiful highly detailed maps it's something I like a lot, nothing even compares in that regard, I know the game is a shameless skin store but I do appreciate the former, although I also hate how small a lot of maps are, glances at Nuketown
  - p1necone 1y ago
    They stole all the parkour stuff from Titanfall, which was made by the original IW founders when they left and founded Respawn ;) (I use "stole" in a non derogatory way here - 90% of good game design is cribbing together stuff that worked elsewhere in a slightly new form)

doctorpangloss 1y ago

Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.

exasperaited 1y ago
Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.
- danielbln 1y ago
  Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it. Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.
    - alickz 1y ago
      >AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. AI is just a wrapper around a tool - it doesn't need intention or creativity because those come from the user in the form of prompts (which are by definition intentional) It's just a Natural Language Interface for calling CLI tools mostly, just like how GUIs are just graphical interfaces for calling CLI tools, but no one thinks a GUI has no intentionality or creativity even when using stochastic/probabilistic tools Anything a user can do with an AI they could also do with a GUI, it would just take longer and more practice >Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. But then how do you know something is slop before you know if it's made with GenAI? Does all art exist as Schrodinger's Slop until you can prove GenAI was used? (if that's even possible)

DebtDeflation 1y ago

> Generative AI in final outputs or productive work undermines the foundation of their future success vis a vis discounting or dismissing IP Law and Rights It goes beyond just IP law compliance. Creativity is their core competency and competitive differentiator. If you replace that with AI slop, then your product becomes almost indistinguishable from that of everyone else producing AI slop. IMO, they're striking exactly the right balance - use AI as a creative aid and productivity booster not something to make the critical aspects of the final product.