3 ms·

It's interesting you interpret the consumer's response as a desire for the expansion of IP laws. As an artist whose work exists in many of these training sets,

It's interesting you interpret the consumer's response as a desire for the expansion of IP laws. As an artist whose work exists in many of these training sets, I'm of a different opinion: IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data. Since the didn't, they should go to jail. The same way I would have gone to jail if I built Sora in my basement and sold it to the public.

visarga 7mo ago
I thought it was at most a monetary fine, do people go to jail for copyright infringement? But you seem to want to own all the air around your work, the ground beneath it too. Nothing can exist around it, so a creative person would do better to avert their eyes rather than loading useless ideas. Why should I install in my brain your "furniture" when I am not allowed to sit on it? In these cases I think authors provide a net negative to society by creating more works that further forbid others from creating in the same space. Here, for example, any comment is open to read and respond to. On ArXiv any paper can be downloaded, read and cited. Wikipedia contains text from many thousands of editors, building on each other. We like collaboration more than asserting our exclusivity rights. That is why these places provide better quality than work for direct profit or, God forbid, ad revenue, that is where the slop starts flowing.
protocolture 7mo ago
>IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data. But including your art in the training data is fair use (or otherwise exempt) by most standards, as no reproduction occurs. You are advocating for a change to IP law to make it more restrictive.
- throwawaysoxjje 7mo ago
  Which case decided that?
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  > But including your art in the training data is fair use It shouldn't be!
  - protocolture 7mo ago
    Why? I dont undertand this take at all.
- heavyset_go 7mo ago
  No precedent has been set when it comes to training and fair use
- abustamam 7mo ago
  Fair use by most standards? Which standards are those? I don't think a standard about training an AI on billions of images exists.
  - oreally 7mo ago
    By the same 'transformative' standards that allow satire, reaction and commentary videos to exist. And those take 100% from the source and add context, whereas good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source. In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on *your observation* of someone else's work is absurd. No one pays Newton's descendants for making lifts or hosting bungee jump sport activities.
    - tovej 7mo ago
      Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word? Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does.
      - oreally 7mo ago
        These are my opinions ofc. > Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word? If you meant it literally.. I'd think that such a version would be a sort of parody. It'd be up to lawyers doing their cross-examinations to prove the work was intended for such a purpose though.. > Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does. Probably a lawyer would answer this better than me, but the 'content' is the same and would violate copyright. There's also other factors, like if it was translated/distributed for free. Besides that I regard that LLMs to hold mathematical observations in contrast to a translated work. So long as the user ensures the output isn't close to what's already available imo it fits the transformative criteria.
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago
  > But including your art in the training data is fair use The four factors of fair use in the US: > the purpose and character of your use Commercial, for-profit. Not scholarship, not research, not commentary, not parody, etc. > the nature of the copyrighted work Absolutely everything. Artistic, creative, not purely factual. > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and All of it, from everyone. > the effect of the use upon the potential market. Directly competing with those whose data was copied.
  - oreally 7mo ago
    > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and > All of it, from everyone. Yea I'd like to see how drawing two circles violates the copyright of drawing one circle!
  - rcxdude 7mo ago
    3 and 4 are what that argument is based on, I believe. 3) on the basis that the output is not _reproduced_, and 4) on similar grounds that output that's just not at all the same as the input data isn't affecting the market for the original image (I think this is the more debatable one, but in general the existing cases have struggled at the early stages because the plaintiffs have not been able to actually point to output that is a copy of their part of the input, and this does actually matter).
  - protocolture 7mo ago
    >Directly competing with those whose data was copied. An LLM doesnt compete with Art the same way that Photoshop doesnt compete with Art. >All of it, from everyone. With the result that anything produced by the LLM does not reproduce any single source in its entirety (and where compelled if they are able to do that is a bug not a feature) Fair use is too specific tbh, rather than ruling it fair use (which seems to be where things are going) it should just be ruled "use". There's nothing wrong with building a mathematical model using available data.
    - JoshTriplett 7mo ago
      > An LLM doesnt compete with Art the same way that Photoshop doesnt compete with Art. Yes, it does. Many people are using AI-generated works in places where they originally would have either paid an artist, programmer, or other creative professional, or done without. Many companies are claiming to reduce staff because of AI (whether that's true or an excuse). There is plenty of evidence that AI is directly competing with various individuals, businesses, and industries. > With the result that anything produced by the LLM does not reproduce any single source in its entirety You do not have to reproduce sources in their entirety to produce derivative works.
JAlexoid 7mo ago
As an artist your license didn't ban learning from your work. Unless your content was acquired without a license at all - you absolutely gave them permission to use it in training sets. That is the gap in the legal landscape.
- maplethorpe 7mo ago
  No I didn't. It's use in a software product without my permission. That's never been allowed. Just because you obfuscate what's happening by calling it "learning" and pretending your model is actually just looking at pictures the same as a human, doesn't make it true.
  - JAlexoid 7mo ago
    Unfortunately you did grant that permission. Once you granted the permission for someone to hold a copy, they have the permission to process it. I can assure you, that you didn't grant a license with an exclusive list of operations that can be performed on your work of art. At best you may have had something like "no commercial use" clause and general broad terms.

visarga 7mo ago

I thought it was at most a monetary fine, do people go to jail for copyright infringement? But you seem to want to own all the air around your work, the ground beneath it too. Nothing can exist around it, so a creative person would do better to avert their eyes rather than loading useless ideas. Why should I install in my brain your "furniture" when I am not allowed to sit on it? In these cases I think authors provide a net negative to society by creating more works that further forbid others from creating in the same space. Here, for example, any comment is open to read and respond to. On ArXiv any paper can be downloaded, read and cited. Wikipedia contains text from many thousands of editors, building on each other. We like collaboration more than asserting our exclusivity rights. That is why these places provide better quality than work for direct profit or, God forbid, ad revenue, that is where the slop starts flowing.

protocolture 7mo ago

>IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data. But including your art in the training data is fair use (or otherwise exempt) by most standards, as no reproduction occurs. You are advocating for a change to IP law to make it more restrictive.

throwawaysoxjje 7mo ago
Which case decided that?
bluefirebrand 7mo ago
> But including your art in the training data is fair use It shouldn't be!
- protocolture 7mo ago
  Why? I dont undertand this take at all.
heavyset_go 7mo ago
No precedent has been set when it comes to training and fair use
abustamam 7mo ago
Fair use by most standards? Which standards are those? I don't think a standard about training an AI on billions of images exists.
- oreally 7mo ago
  By the same 'transformative' standards that allow satire, reaction and commentary videos to exist. And those take 100% from the source and add context, whereas good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source. In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on *your observation* of someone else's work is absurd. No one pays Newton's descendants for making lifts or hosting bungee jump sport activities.
  - tovej 7mo ago
    Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word? Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does.
    - oreally 7mo ago
      These are my opinions ofc. > Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word? If you meant it literally.. I'd think that such a version would be a sort of parody. It'd be up to lawyers doing their cross-examinations to prove the work was intended for such a purpose though.. > Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does. Probably a lawyer would answer this better than me, but the 'content' is the same and would violate copyright. There's also other factors, like if it was translated/distributed for free. Besides that I regard that LLMs to hold mathematical observations in contrast to a translated work. So long as the user ensures the output isn't close to what's already available imo it fits the transformative criteria.
JoshTriplett 7mo ago
> But including your art in the training data is fair use The four factors of fair use in the US: > the purpose and character of your use Commercial, for-profit. Not scholarship, not research, not commentary, not parody, etc. > the nature of the copyrighted work Absolutely everything. Artistic, creative, not purely factual. > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and All of it, from everyone. > the effect of the use upon the potential market. Directly competing with those whose data was copied.
- oreally 7mo ago
  > the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and > All of it, from everyone. Yea I'd like to see how drawing two circles violates the copyright of drawing one circle!
- rcxdude 7mo ago
  3 and 4 are what that argument is based on, I believe. 3) on the basis that the output is not _reproduced_, and 4) on similar grounds that output that's just not at all the same as the input data isn't affecting the market for the original image (I think this is the more debatable one, but in general the existing cases have struggled at the early stages because the plaintiffs have not been able to actually point to output that is a copy of their part of the input, and this does actually matter).
- protocolture 7mo ago
  >Directly competing with those whose data was copied. An LLM doesnt compete with Art the same way that Photoshop doesnt compete with Art. >All of it, from everyone. With the result that anything produced by the LLM does not reproduce any single source in its entirety (and where compelled if they are able to do that is a bug not a feature) Fair use is too specific tbh, rather than ruling it fair use (which seems to be where things are going) it should just be ruled "use". There's nothing wrong with building a mathematical model using available data.
  - JoshTriplett 7mo ago
    > An LLM doesnt compete with Art the same way that Photoshop doesnt compete with Art. Yes, it does. Many people are using AI-generated works in places where they originally would have either paid an artist, programmer, or other creative professional, or done without. Many companies are claiming to reduce staff because of AI (whether that's true or an excuse). There is plenty of evidence that AI is directly competing with various individuals, businesses, and industries. > With the result that anything produced by the LLM does not reproduce any single source in its entirety You do not have to reproduce sources in their entirety to produce derivative works.

JAlexoid 7mo ago

As an artist your license didn't ban learning from your work. Unless your content was acquired without a license at all - you absolutely gave them permission to use it in training sets. That is the gap in the legal landscape.

maplethorpe 7mo ago
No I didn't. It's use in a software product without my permission. That's never been allowed. Just because you obfuscate what's happening by calling it "learning" and pretending your model is actually just looking at pictures the same as a human, doesn't make it true.
- JAlexoid 7mo ago
  Unfortunately you did grant that permission. Once you granted the permission for someone to hold a copy, they have the permission to process it. I can assure you, that you didn't grant a license with an exclusive list of operations that can be performed on your work of art. At best you may have had something like "no commercial use" clause and general broad terms.