• kernelle@0d.gs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Publicly available data” - I wonder if that includes Disney’s catalogue? Or Nintendo’s IP? I think they are veeery selective about their “Publicly available data”, it also implies the only requirement for such training data is that it is publicly available, which almost every piece of media ever? How an AI model isn’t public domain by default baffles me.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

      • kernelle@0d.gs
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Great articles, first is one of the best I’ve read about the implications of fair use. I argue that because of the broadness of human knowledge that is interpreted through these models, everyone is entitled to have unrestricted access to them (not the servers or algorithms used, the models). I’ll dub it “the library of the digital age” argument.

    • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The problem is that if copyrighted works are used, you could generate a copyrighted artwork that would be made into public domain, stripping its protection. I would love this approach, the problem is the lobbyists don’t agree with me.

      • kernelle@0d.gs
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I’d say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.

        • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think that if I paint with my own brush a mario artwork that isn’t to Nintendo’s standart, they have the legal power to take it down from wherever I upload

          • kernelle@0d.gs
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Really? Even if your artwork isn’t used in a commercial way?

            • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m really not in the know abput these things but I have seen free fangames taken down because they used copyrighted property even though the creators don’t receive a penny.

              • kernelle@0d.gs
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’ll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It’s my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we’ll see if that remains true.

                • Grimy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Copyrights and IP laws don’t only come into effect if profit is made. Fan products are usually tolerated by companies because it’s free advertising and fans get angry when it does get taken down.

                  When a fan product starts making money, it’s usually because it directly competes with the original IP and then they act. Even then, Etsy has thousands of shops with copyrighted content but the small profit loss doesnt justify the loss of reputation for the companies.

                  That being said, it’s the user who uploads it who is at fault and not the tool used to create it.

                  Ultimately, I think it’s the platforms that let users upload copyrighted content and celebrity likenesses that should be at fault. Take for example the Taylor Swift debacle. An image generator was used to create the images sure but twitter chose to let it float on their website for a whole day even though it was most likely reported in the first 5 minutes.

                  There’s also the fact that if we start demanding AI doesn’t use copyrighted content, it kills the open source scene and cements Google and Microsoft’s grip on our economy as we move towards an AI driven society.

                  • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    In my opinion making AI stop taking copyrighted content can only be enforced by making all AI development open source, datasets and models included. This is the way to loosen the control bigmonopolies like Google and Microsoft have over it.

                  • kernelle@0d.gs
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it’s a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.

            • the_artic_one@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes, fanart is almost certainly copyright infringement unless the copyright holder grants a license. Many companies have an official license for non-commercial fanart and generally nobody cares about it but if someone really wanted to they could absolutely file takedown requests against all fanart of their work.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          The existing legal precedence in most places is that most use of ML doesn’t count as human expression and doesn’t have copyright protection. You have to have significant control over the creation of the output to have copyright (the easiest workaround is simply manually modifying the ML output and then only releasing the modified version)

          • kernelle@0d.gs
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The existing legal precedence

            I know that’s how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          If you rent a brush to paint with, is the painting not yours? If you rent a musical instrument to record an original song with, is the song not yours?

          • kernelle@0d.gs
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Exactly! When you pay for a service you own the copyright, like having a photoshop license. I meant in other situations where it’s free or provided as research tools to engineers under a company.