Technology

59295 readers

4310 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

430

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

412 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

“The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use”

So selling fan fiction and fan-made game continuations and modifications should be legal?

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not the OP, but yes it absolutely should. The idea you can legaly block someones creative expression because they are using elements of culture you have obtained a monopoly of is obscene.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago

I know it should. Only then we'd have no IP remaining. As it should be, the only case where it's valid is punishing somebody impersonating the author or falsely claiming authorship, and that's frankly just fraud.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago

It should, but also that is significantly different from what an AI model is.

It would be more like a list of facts and information about the structure of another work, and facts and patterns about lots of other similar works; and that list of facts can easily be used to create other, very similar works, but also it can be used to create entirely new works that follow patters from the other works.

In as much as the model can be used to create infringing works -but is not one itself- makes this similar to other cases where a platform or tool can be used in infringing ways. In such cases, if the platform or tool is responsible for reasonable protections from such uses, then they aren't held liable themselves. Think Youtube DMCA, Facebook content moderation, or even Google Books search. I think this is likely the way this goes; there is just too strong a case (with precedent) that the model is fair use.