It’s you that’s spreading misinformation. Is it possible to train an ai not to infringe copyright? Maybe. But it clearly happens today, with available models.
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
-14 points (33.3% liked)
Artificial Intelligence
1329 readers
17 users here now
Welcome to the AI Community!
Let's explore AI passionately, foster innovation, and learn together. Follow these guidelines for a vibrant and respectful community:
- Be kind and respectful.
- Share high-quality contributions.
- Stay on-topic.
- Enhance accessibility.
- Verify information.
- Encourage meaningful discussions.
You can access the AI Wiki at the following link: AI Wiki
Let's create a thriving AI community together!
founded 1 year ago
With something like GPT sure it happens, but humans also do this when writing all the time.
“Humans do it too”, and “yeah but it’s not intentional” are not counters to the claim that ai can infringe copyright.
Sure they are! Should I not make and sell art as a human because I would risk this?
To add to that, I consider this to be unintentional plagiarism. As someone who is about to finish a Masters degree it is no mystery that two humans can come up with the same thing. This can constitute copyright infringement, but it is far from theft.
Would you mind TLDRing your thoughts here, for conversational sake?
Many are spreading misinformation that Generative AI art is akin to copyright infringement. While this is still being disputed legally, the technical answer is no. AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it's own based on that.
Thanks for the TLDR, appreciate it. One follow-up question, if you don't mind.
In your opinion, who owns the content/data that the AI models are programmed from?
As someone who just popped into the thread, is it okay if I ask who owns the content/data that you have viewed and learned from your entire life?
As someone who just popped into the thread, is it okay if I ask who owns the content/data that you have viewed and learned from your entire life?
The people who had created the content, of course.
They gave their content to me to be entertained by and/or to learn from, after I paid them for it, or watched commercials for it, or for free.
Most of our learning is done before we can even enter into a contract, before we are an adult. So no, you didn't pay for all of your knowledge, schools provided by your neighbors did a ton of that. Most of it was society coming together communally and supporting you with our collective shoulders of knowledge.
Most of our learning is done before we can even enter into a contract, before we are an adult. So no you didn’t pay for all of your knowledge.
I never said I paid for all of my knowledge...
after I paid them for it, or watched commercials for it, or for free.
Also, I was watching commercials since I was a child, so I was returning the barter for the content being displayed to me.
Most of it was society coming together communally and supporting you with our collective shoulders of knowledge.
That too.
The person that created the content does, but there is nothing wrong with basing your work on things other people have made, that you have witnessed.
but there is nothing wrong with basing your work on things other people have made, that you have witnessed.
Without paying them for their content first?
Or at the very least get their permission first?
Would the AI model creators pay back some of their profits to the people that created the content that they program their models from, after the fact?
It really comes down to at what point does your content become public domain. IANAL, so I have no idea what the legalities on that is.
But as someone who creates content in a very very very small manner, I would like to be compensated for it, if it's used for commercial purposes.
I don't agree there Cosmic. Take music for instance, a lot of artist inspiration comes from what they listened to on the Radio. I know very few artists that have called up all of the bands they listened to on the radio to get permission to make their own work.
If you make your music free to listen to in any way that opens you up to others being inspired by you.
I don’t agree there Cosmic. Take music for instance, a lot of artist inspiration comes from what they listened to on the Radio. I know very few artists that have called up all of the bands they listened to on the radio to get permission to make their own work.
Don't mean to be argumentative, but I think you chose a poor example to try to prove your point.
Artists get sued all the time for infringement, when they base their song too closely off of another artists song/content.
IANAL, and I'm guessing neither are you, but I don't think you can just say five seconds after somebody creates content it's free and in the public domain for anyone else to use. Everything I do understand about the law today goes against that philosophy.
There's usually a period of time (one which Disney tends to stretch to an absurd factor) before private content becomes public domain.
Finally, don't get me wrong, I do think content should go into the public domain sooner rather than later.
But I also do know that if big corporations are going to become very very rich off of someone else's content, that those other people should be rewarded monetarily for that content, so they can share in their success of the sold product that the content was generated from.
I think I see the disconnect here. I don't feel that the art/work in question has to be in the public domain to be fair game for inspiration. It is the artists choice how they want to distribute their material. I see no need to differentiate between human inspiration and AI inspiration.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own. In reality the law does allow for you to file for infringement just based on the work being similar, regardless of if the person being accused of infringement has ever even witnessed the source material. I see this as just fundamental flaw in the system, that has existed before AI ever came about.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
That's not how the law (or the Internet) works currently though. They can license its usage, and also there are automatic copyright protections given by the law as well.
Now, what Congress does with the existing laws in the future is fair game, and another thing altogether.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own.
An interesting technical legal point to argue would be that if an AI model-making corporation copies the content to their servers hard drives before having their model read/study it from said hard drives, vs. having the model 'see' it directly from the source material in real time, like how a human being does it. 🤔
As it is now, the content is copied first, then used later, so per your own definition it would be covered by copyright (assuming its not already explicitly licensed otherwise). Again, IANAL. 🙂
I think all y’all are wrong. No King but King lud.
So yeah the problem is it’s extracting value from the poor in the form of desirable labor to give to the rich.
I think Artist should vote for system where they don't need to fight for some otherwise unnecessary 'property rights'. Try ditching the Capitalist religion.
I see your point. But it's not based on anything. You just claim AI creativity works like human cretivity without backing that up. While I too think this is the case... The interesting question would be: Is that really the case? And why? Without an explanation and reasoning, it's just an unsubstanciated claim.
And it's not the whole story of what's happening in practice. Several companies have been proven to download everything they can get a hold of and train their AIs on it. Pirated book archives, images they didn't obtain rights to. To the point where watermarks crept in and they had to add steps to their procedure to remove them and hide the fact. And Meta had to admit to pirating books. A proper analogy would be a professor who uses bittorrent and pirating sites to obtain material and hand that to their students to learn from... And that's not how it works in real life. Schools and universities license the material to distribute it to their students, put it in a library or the students have to buy the books. They don't rip off school-book authors per default.
And am I allowed to run bittorrent and download the latest Marvel movie (without paying) to watch it and "learn" what it's about? Download lots of music from P2P networks like I used to in the early 2000s? It'd save me the money I currently spend on a Spotify and Netflix subscription.
Many are spreading misinformation that Generative AI art is akin to copyright infringement. While this is still being disputed legally, the technical answer is no. AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it's own based on that.
AI works much like the creative part of our brain, getting ideas from things it has witnessed, and creating works of it’s own based on that.
Only if it 'sees' the content in real time when programming itself, like a human being does.
But if a corporation copies that content/data to their servers/hard drives first, then runs training programs on said content/data afterwards, then its copying the content/data first, and violates copyright.