7 ms·

If this was a farm of sweatshop Photoshopers in 2010, who download all images from the internet and provide a service of combining them on your request, this wo

by oxag3n 10mo ago

If this was a farm of sweatshop Photoshopers in 2010, who download all images from the internet and provide a service of combining them on your request, this would escalate pretty quickly. Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected? Anecdotal: I had a hobby of doing photos in quite rare style and lived in a place where you'd get quite a few pictures of. When I asked gpt to generate a picture of that are in that style, it returned highly modified, but recognizable copy of a photo I've published years ago.

nobody_r_knows 10mo ago
my question to your anecdotal: who cares? not being fecicious, but who cares if someone reproduced your stuff and millions of people see your stuff? is the money that you want? is it the fame? because fame you will get, maybe not money... but couldn't there be another way?
- netule 10mo ago
  Suddenly, copyright doesn't matter anymore when it's no longer useful to the narrative.
  - BoorishBears 10mo ago
    OpenAI does care about copyright, thankfully China does not: https://imgur.com/a/RKxYIyi https://imgur.com/a/RKxYIyi (to clarify, OpenAI stops refining the image if a classifier detects your image as potentially violating certain copyrights. Although the gulf in resolution is not caused by that.)
  - ragequittah 10mo ago
    Copyright has overstepped its initial purpose by leaps and bounds because corporations make the law. If you're not cynical about how Copyright currently works you probably haven't been paying attention. And it doesn't take much to go from cynical to nihilist in this case.
    - netule 10mo ago
      There's definitely a case of miscommunication at play if you didn't read cynicism into my original post. I broadly agree with you, but I'll leave it at that to prevent further fruitless arguing about specifics.
  - CamperBob2 10mo ago
    (Shrug) This is more important. Sorry.
- swatcoder 10mo ago
  People have values that go beyond wealth and fame. Some people care about things like personal agency, respect and deference, etc. If someone were on vacation and came home to learn that their neighbor had allowed some friends stay in the empty house, we would often expect some kind of outrage regardless of whether there had been specific damage or wear to the home. Culturally, people have deeply set ideas about what's theirs, and feel like they deserve some say over how their things are used and by whom. Even those that are very generous and want their things be widely shared usually want to have have some voice in making that come to be.
  - visarga 10mo ago
    If I were a creative I would avoid seeing any work I am not legally allowed to get inspired by, why install furniture into my brain I can't sit on? I see this kind of IP protection as poisoned grounds, can't do anything on top of it.
- jibal 10mo ago
  facetious [I won't bother responding to the rest of your appalling comment]
  - huflungdung 10mo ago
    [dead]
- illwrks 10mo ago
  The issue is ownership, not promotion or visibility.
- huflungdung 10mo ago
  [dead]
- Forgeties79 10mo ago
  As a professional cinematographer/photographer I am incredibly uncomfortable with people using my art without my permission for unknown ends. Doubly so when it’s venture backed private companies stealing from millions of people like me as they make vague promises about the capabilities of their software trained on my work. It doesn’t take much to understand why that makes me uncomfortable and why I feel I am entitled to saying “no.” Legally I am entitled to that in so many cases, yet for some reason Altman et al get to skip that hurdle. Why? How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to. At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.
  - CamperBob2 10mo ago
    The day after I first heard about the Internet, back in 1990-whatever, it occurred to me that I probably shouldn't upload anything to the Internet that I didn't want to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper. Apart from the 'newspaper' anachronism, that's pretty much still my take. Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.
    - Forgeties79 10mo ago
      > Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it. You were fine until this bit.
      - onraglanroad 10mo ago
        They're still fine because they're right. You got to play the copyright game when the big corps were on your side. Now they're on the other side. Deal with it and get over it.
- oxag3n 10mo ago
  To clarify my question - I do not want anything I create to be fed into their training data. That photo is just an example that I caught and it became personal. But in general I don't want anymore to open source my code, write articles and put any effort into improving training data set.
- whywhywhywhy 10mo ago
  The people building the tech are extremely fussy about their work being cited and extremely protective of their models files so they themselves have massive issues with their work being used or replicated non-consensually.
margorczynski 10mo ago
We are probably entering the post-copyright era. The law will follow sooner or later.
- rafram 10mo ago
  That seems unlikely to me. One side is made up of lots and lots of entrenched interests with sympathetic figures like authors and artists on their side, and the other is “big tech,” dominated by the rather unsympathetic OpenAI and Google.
  - realharo 10mo ago
    The other side however has the "if you restrict us, China will win" argument on their side.
    - panopticon 10mo ago
      That argument is easy to politicize and selectively ignore. See: renewables and EVs.
- oblio 10mo ago
  Yup, just like the post-copyright era followed the dawn of the internet and the emergence of Napster.
mortenjorck 10mo ago
> how do I make (at least) new content protected? Air gap. If you don’t want content to be used without your permission, it never leaves your computer. This is the only protection that works. If you want others to see your content, however, you have to accept some degree of trade off with it being misappropriated. Blatant cases can be addressed the same as they always were, but a model overfitting to your original work poses an interesting question for which I’m not aware of any legal precedents having been set yet.
- echelon 10mo ago
  Horror scenario: Big IP holders will go nuclear on IP licensing to an extent we've never seen before. Right now, there are thousands of images and videos of Star Wars, Pokemon, Superman, Sonic, etc. being posted across social media. All it takes is for the biggest IP conglomerates to turn into linear tv and sports networks of the past and treat social media like cable. Disney: "Gee {Google,Meta,Reddit,TikTok}, we see you have a lot of Star Wars and Marvel content. We think that's a violation of our rights. If you want your users to continue to be able to post our media, you need to pay us $5B/yr." I would not be surprised if this happens now that every user on the internet can soon create high-fidelity content. This could be a new $20-30B/yr business for Disney. Nintendo, WBD, and lots of other giant IP holders could easily follow suit.
  - empressplay 10mo ago
    Disney invests $1 billion in OpenAI, licenses 200 characters for AI video app Sora https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/disney-invests-1-billion-in-openai-licenses-200-characters-for-ai-video-app-sora/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/disney-invests-1-billion-...
    - echelon 10mo ago
      One day later, "Google pulls AI-generated videos of Disney characters from YouTube in response to cease and desist": https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-pulls-ai-generated-videos-of-disney-characters-from-youtube-in-response-to-cease-and-desist-220849629.html https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-pulls-ai-generated-videos... The next step is to take this beyond AI generations and to license rights to characters and IP on social media directly. The next salvo will be where YouTube has to take down all major IP-related content if they don't pay a licensing fee. Regardless of how it was created. Movie reviews, fan animations, video game let's plays. I've got a strong feeling that day is coming soon.
LudwigNagasena 10mo ago
Using references is a standard industry practice for digital art and VFX. The main difference is that you are unable to accidentally copy a reference too close, while with AI it’s possible.
ur-whale 10mo ago
> Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected? Question: Now that the steamboats have been invented, how do I keep my clipper business afloat ? Answer: Good riddance to the broken idea of IP, Schumpeter's Gale is around the corner, time for a new business model.
999900000999 10mo ago
A middle ground would be Chat GPT at least providing attribution. Back in reality, you can get in line to sue. Since they have more money than you, you can't really win though. So it goes.
pfortuny 10mo ago
I guess some kind of hard (repetitive) steganography where the private key signature of the original photo is somehow encoded lots of times; also watermarking everything and asking the reader for some kind of verification if they want their non-watermarked copy. There seems to be no other way (apart from air-gapping everything, as others say).

by oxag3n 10mo ago

nobody_r_knows 10mo ago

my question to your anecdotal: who cares? not being fecicious, but who cares if someone reproduced your stuff and millions of people see your stuff? is the money that you want? is it the fame? because fame you will get, maybe not money... but couldn't there be another way?

netule 10mo ago
Suddenly, copyright doesn't matter anymore when it's no longer useful to the narrative.
- BoorishBears 10mo ago
  OpenAI does care about copyright, thankfully China does not: https://imgur.com/a/RKxYIyi https://imgur.com/a/RKxYIyi (to clarify, OpenAI stops refining the image if a classifier detects your image as potentially violating certain copyrights. Although the gulf in resolution is not caused by that.)
- ragequittah 10mo ago
  Copyright has overstepped its initial purpose by leaps and bounds because corporations make the law. If you're not cynical about how Copyright currently works you probably haven't been paying attention. And it doesn't take much to go from cynical to nihilist in this case.
  - netule 10mo ago
    There's definitely a case of miscommunication at play if you didn't read cynicism into my original post. I broadly agree with you, but I'll leave it at that to prevent further fruitless arguing about specifics.
- CamperBob2 10mo ago
  (Shrug) This is more important. Sorry.
swatcoder 10mo ago
People have values that go beyond wealth and fame. Some people care about things like personal agency, respect and deference, etc. If someone were on vacation and came home to learn that their neighbor had allowed some friends stay in the empty house, we would often expect some kind of outrage regardless of whether there had been specific damage or wear to the home. Culturally, people have deeply set ideas about what's theirs, and feel like they deserve some say over how their things are used and by whom. Even those that are very generous and want their things be widely shared usually want to have have some voice in making that come to be.
- visarga 10mo ago
  If I were a creative I would avoid seeing any work I am not legally allowed to get inspired by, why install furniture into my brain I can't sit on? I see this kind of IP protection as poisoned grounds, can't do anything on top of it.
jibal 10mo ago
facetious [I won't bother responding to the rest of your appalling comment]
- huflungdung 10mo ago
  [dead]
illwrks 10mo ago
The issue is ownership, not promotion or visibility.
huflungdung 10mo ago
[dead]
Forgeties79 10mo ago
As a professional cinematographer/photographer I am incredibly uncomfortable with people using my art without my permission for unknown ends. Doubly so when it’s venture backed private companies stealing from millions of people like me as they make vague promises about the capabilities of their software trained on my work. It doesn’t take much to understand why that makes me uncomfortable and why I feel I am entitled to saying “no.” Legally I am entitled to that in so many cases, yet for some reason Altman et al get to skip that hurdle. Why? How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to. At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.
- CamperBob2 10mo ago
  The day after I first heard about the Internet, back in 1990-whatever, it occurred to me that I probably shouldn't upload anything to the Internet that I didn't want to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper. Apart from the 'newspaper' anachronism, that's pretty much still my take. Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.
  - Forgeties79 10mo ago
    > Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it. You were fine until this bit.
    - onraglanroad 10mo ago
      They're still fine because they're right. You got to play the copyright game when the big corps were on your side. Now they're on the other side. Deal with it and get over it.
oxag3n 10mo ago
To clarify my question - I do not want anything I create to be fed into their training data. That photo is just an example that I caught and it became personal. But in general I don't want anymore to open source my code, write articles and put any effort into improving training data set.
whywhywhywhy 10mo ago
The people building the tech are extremely fussy about their work being cited and extremely protective of their models files so they themselves have massive issues with their work being used or replicated non-consensually.

margorczynski 10mo ago

We are probably entering the post-copyright era. The law will follow sooner or later.

rafram 10mo ago
That seems unlikely to me. One side is made up of lots and lots of entrenched interests with sympathetic figures like authors and artists on their side, and the other is “big tech,” dominated by the rather unsympathetic OpenAI and Google.
- realharo 10mo ago
  The other side however has the "if you restrict us, China will win" argument on their side.
  - panopticon 10mo ago
    That argument is easy to politicize and selectively ignore. See: renewables and EVs.
oblio 10mo ago
Yup, just like the post-copyright era followed the dawn of the internet and the emergence of Napster.

mortenjorck 10mo ago

> how do I make (at least) new content protected? Air gap. If you don’t want content to be used without your permission, it never leaves your computer. This is the only protection that works. If you want others to see your content, however, you have to accept some degree of trade off with it being misappropriated. Blatant cases can be addressed the same as they always were, but a model overfitting to your original work poses an interesting question for which I’m not aware of any legal precedents having been set yet.

echelon 10mo ago
Horror scenario: Big IP holders will go nuclear on IP licensing to an extent we've never seen before. Right now, there are thousands of images and videos of Star Wars, Pokemon, Superman, Sonic, etc. being posted across social media. All it takes is for the biggest IP conglomerates to turn into linear tv and sports networks of the past and treat social media like cable. Disney: "Gee {Google,Meta,Reddit,TikTok}, we see you have a lot of Star Wars and Marvel content. We think that's a violation of our rights. If you want your users to continue to be able to post our media, you need to pay us $5B/yr." I would not be surprised if this happens now that every user on the internet can soon create high-fidelity content. This could be a new $20-30B/yr business for Disney. Nintendo, WBD, and lots of other giant IP holders could easily follow suit.
- empressplay 10mo ago
  Disney invests $1 billion in OpenAI, licenses 200 characters for AI video app Sora https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/disney-invests-1-billion-in-openai-licenses-200-characters-for-ai-video-app-sora/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/disney-invests-1-billion-...
  - echelon 10mo ago
    One day later, "Google pulls AI-generated videos of Disney characters from YouTube in response to cease and desist": https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-pulls-ai-generated-videos-of-disney-characters-from-youtube-in-response-to-cease-and-desist-220849629.html https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-pulls-ai-generated-videos... The next step is to take this beyond AI generations and to license rights to characters and IP on social media directly. The next salvo will be where YouTube has to take down all major IP-related content if they don't pay a licensing fee. Regardless of how it was created. Movie reviews, fan animations, video game let's plays. I've got a strong feeling that day is coming soon.

LudwigNagasena 10mo ago

Using references is a standard industry practice for digital art and VFX. The main difference is that you are unable to accidentally copy a reference too close, while with AI it’s possible.

ur-whale 10mo ago

> Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected? Question: Now that the steamboats have been invented, how do I keep my clipper business afloat ? Answer: Good riddance to the broken idea of IP, Schumpeter's Gale is around the corner, time for a new business model.

999900000999 10mo ago

A middle ground would be Chat GPT at least providing attribution. Back in reality, you can get in line to sue. Since they have more money than you, you can't really win though. So it goes.

pfortuny 10mo ago

I guess some kind of hard (repetitive) steganography where the private key signature of the original photo is somehow encoded lots of times; also watermarking everything and asking the reader for some kind of verification if they want their non-watermarked copy. There seems to be no other way (apart from air-gapping everything, as others say).