this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023

104 points (87.1% liked)

Technology

58173 readers

3528 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

104

If Creators Suing AI Companies Over Copyright Win, It Will Further Entrench Big Tech (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 9 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 59 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

This is an ~~extremely unpopular~~ opinion, but I just hate copyright as a concept to begin with. Yes I want creators to own their own work and be able to profit from it....but that's not even how it works now. Like 10 companies own all the popular IPs, many don't even do anything with them. They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it. Fan fiction already exists and rarely do they get confused with the original. I'm not concerned about big companies stealing the little guys work because those big companies most of the time can't even manage to make interesting concepts out of their existing work with the benefit of already owning the creations of thousands of artists.

All so Mickey Mouse could be covered under copyright for 100 fucking years.

Edit: I have apparently misunderstood the popularity of this opinion.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the big problem is the duration of copyright. That it's so much longer than patents is pretty hard to logically defend.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Yup, No one being able to produce a copy of something you created for a decade after it was first published - entirely reasonable.

People profiting off of artificial exclusivity 60 years after the author died 50 years after publishing a work - not reasonable.

[–] anthoniix@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

This is the correct take. Copyright as a concept is just flawed, especially in a world where you can sell those ideas.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is an extremely unpopular opinion,

Not in my instance ;)

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

that’s not even how it works now

that's never how it has worked. the statute of anne was written to stop 17th century london printers from breaking each others' knees over who is allowed to publish long-dead shakespeare's plays.

[–] custard_swollower@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (7 children)

It is missing one point: as a creator, I want to be able to forbid you from training on my creations. And the only tool that could enable that is the copyright enforcement over AI training.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Exactly

If there was an opt out system that was actually respected then this wouldn’t be a problem. But as it stands, artists have no control over if their work is used for NN training.

I don’t want my work used to train models, which should be a completely valid stance to have. Open Source or not really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of it.

[–] aibler@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you think that other artists should be allowed to look at your work that you post online and as a result they become a better artist because of it?

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

That’s not how AI works and is an argument rooted in a misunderstanding of how it functions.

AI does not “learn” or “understand” - it replicates. It is not near how a human learns, processes and transforms an idea.

[–] aibler@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

My bad, I suppose I should have gone further down my line of reasoning. I am well aware of the differences between what generative AI does and what human artists do.

Do you think artists should be allowed to categorize other artists work so that when they want inspiration on how to draw mouths, they can quickly look through and see a bunch of other artists mouths to get inspiration from? (So they can then draw their own mouths)

Should they be allowed to use AI to help them do this identification and categorization?

Should they be allowed to use AI to create new mouths based on the collection they have amassed so they can get inspiration from these never before seen mouths?

Does it make any difference if they have created this identifying/categorizing AI themself?

If they take this combination of AI that they created and these images that they collected, and the resulting AI inspiration mouths that they have produced, should they be allowed to alter them to suit the unique face that they are making? Or is the fact that they combined what people currently call "AI" with other people's work enough to make it against the rules?

What if they made the AI and never plugged in anyone else's mouths, should they be allowed to use that AI to make their work?

Where exactly is the line at that people should not be allowed to cross?

I know there are lots of questions here, I totally understand if you don't have time or answers for them. I'm just kind of laying out why I see not nearly as clear of a line as some people/headlines would like to have everyone think there is.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

See, I would argue the exact opposite. It sounds like you don't understand how it works.

Because it's not "replication" or "copying".

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Most LLMs can be made to spit out training data. That’s pretty much replication in my book.

Statistical models don’t create anything. They replicate variations of their training data.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Painters replicate variations of their training pieces too. You're pretending there's a difference between human inspired and training inspired and that you should get paid for that inspiration in one case just cuz "big corp"

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

Because there is a difference. A computer does not learn or understand anything. Human beings can transform a concept. A LLM or other generative AI does not transform a concept at all.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Show some examples?

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

https://twitter.com/katherine1ee/status/1729690964942377076

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] teuast@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

...All of them? That's literally how all of them work.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] zwaetschgeraeuber@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

when you read something and recite it, what do you do? exactly, spitting out the training data, if you trained long enough

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] zwaetschgeraeuber@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

r/confidentlyincorrect

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

The AI companies shown that they are incapable of regulating themselves on this topic, and so people with art at stake should force their hand.

Open source or not doesn't matter here, what matters is the copyright. If even Disney can defend works they own (whatever their ethics), so should anyone else.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

100% agreement from me again. Non-artists don’t have anything at stake, so they’re perfectly happy with the established copyright rules are demolished. People keep countering with the open source idea, which completely misses the entire point of our arguments. A model being open source does not excuse the stealing of training data.

IMO individual copyright should be strengthened and corporate copyright weakened, but that’d be next to impossible to pass.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. I reject you claiming such a power to deny.

[–] custard_swollower@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's exactly what's at stake, waiting to be sufficiently litigated. And I hope that creators will win, and that they would be able to tell if they allow richest big tech companies in the world to train on their creations.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

And I want a law making you pay me 500$ for reading your posts.

Copyright law already extends beyond what society finds reasonable. It's routinely broken by normal people without them even thinking about it. It's even broken by those vested in it both corporations and individual artists.

Finally you are not getting the copyright law you want ( nor should you, you a minority, a special interest ), big corps are. They might be 'content' corps or tech or both but they certainly won't make a law to benefit either society as a whole or you as a small artist.

[–] zwaetschgeraeuber@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

lol, if you want that, keep your pictures for you, else you had to forbid every human to look at your pictures and they could resemble your style

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'll lift a comment from techdirt:

“Let companies rip off your work, or else only Big Tech will be able to rip off your work”

Maybe we're so far in capitalist hellholle that we simply consider everything to be for sale. What about GPL work that OpenAI steals? Or personal data? With how secretive they are with data they "scraped" we don't even know if they have any right at all to repackage and sell it.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Making only big companies able to "rip off your work" (not an accurate representation, but whatever) Is not the solution you think it is.

The only solution is to force all models trained on public data to not be covered by copyrights by default. Any output from those models should also by default be in the commons. The solution is to avoid copyright cartels, not strengthen them.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Agreed that interim solution should be to make all "AI" work public domain since it treats everything it trains on as public domain. I'm for it because it would would immediately stop being profitable for commercial enterprises. Then check who they ripped off and settle any financial claims and damages before moving on to establish license for already created output.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Exactly. Make ALL output public domain. Force them to release their training sets. Force them to open source their models.

There will still be companies like Adobe and DeviantArt who will be able to work around this due to their ToS, but we have enough existing models to make them obsolete due to the power of FOSS.

[–] aibler@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Making all ai work public domain is a great idea... until you start trying to draft actual laws. If ai is only used to make the eyeballs of character is it public domain? If I use a stable diffusion base but then fine-tune it on my own work is it public domain? What if I use ai to make the general idea, then I use that as inspiration to make my own work? How does anyone prove that anything is or isn't ai generated or assisted? The list goes on and on. Making laws about ai use in art simply isn't realistic, they are just too hard to nail down, and too easy to skirt. I don't know what the solution is, but it isn't this unfortunately.

The other big problem with it is that it just means that few big companies who already own almost all the IP(yes, most professional artists don't actually own their own work) just make their own models with their own work and are able to enjoy the benefits of AI while any small group just has yet another disadvantage. It will probably be these big companies pushing for anti-AI/"pro artist" laws.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Of course things are messy. I still think it's the best option. I would say that yes, a character with AI eyes, would be public domain. Treat it like the GPL. If a small part of your code is GPL, all of your code has to be GPL.

Likewise, it isn't easy to prove, people will get away with it doing in very small quantities and sufficiently reworking it, but extravagant examples would be caught, like serial plagiarists eventually are. The resulting loss in credibility could end careers. Of course, the best approach would be to completely remove copyrights altogether, then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

[–] aibler@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Fair enough. What's your stance on this - should someone be allowed to create a text prompt and a list of settings for a specific model and then sell that data that they 100% created themself?

I haven't heard anyone saying they think people should not be allowed their sell their own text creation like this, but if they are allowed to, then it means that anyone who wants to sell AI art just needs to sell the instructions for someone else to create the art themself. This could easily be set up as a file format that the purchaser then just has to run on their own. Seems like a waste of energy for everyone to generate their own copy of the work, but I can't imagine any laws being set up that say people are not allowed to sell their own creations because the purchaser may plug what they created into an AI.

Should this be allowed or should the law extend to people not being allowed to sell text that may be used by someone else to create art?

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

(I edited my comment slightly due to my scatter brain then saw you basically expanding my thought in the same way)

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

That's how it is now.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

No, the models is not in the commons. Their training data is also not known.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The main thing investors do with technology is find something free and make a product out of it. This time they flipped the script by stealing, and I want these companies and investors to face consequences. I don't want all of humanity's creative works that have ever been posted online to be repurposed and repackaged by a new technology and then sold.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, that's what they want. They want the backing of copyright strengthening from emotional reactions like yours so that the only ones able to do GenerativeAI is those few big companies. They're playing you.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Think about WHY only the absurdly wealthy companies would be able to purchase all of that data though. Because that data has immense value. Many authors and artists would certainly refuse to sell. I care that few companies hoard so much wealth and power, but I care more about the current issue that companies with wealth and power dont even have to spend a dime because they are just stealing.

Dont solve the problem of power consolidation on the dime of peoples life's work.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

You don't need every artist to sell. Just enough. Likewise most artists already traded away their rights to the likes of Adobe and deviantart. And since there's no real powerful artist union they all have basically 0 power compared to the capitalists who have more than enough economic power to get this done. Nothing will be fixed or prevented in this path. Only skewed even more in favour of the rich

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don’t want all of humanity’s creative works that have ever been posted online to be repurposed and repackaged by a new technology and then sold.

Me neither. But unless it's the "by a new technology" part that really bothers you, this is a capitalism problem, not AI.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

But even under the current rules and system we are meant it have protections. These companies could see consequences. Even in capitalism, which serves capital, even in America, which does so even more fiercely - they have stolen.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 3 points 9 months ago

If "big tech" can collapse, and it does. It will leave a power-void.

Will the fediverse win? It needs to if we have any chance at democratizing the internet.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 2 points 9 months ago

Finally some sane level headed coverage of AI copyright issues. Techdirt doesn’t miss.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I am just wondering how many of these artists took the Faustian bargain of producing xxx material - you get paid and people appreciate your work but you are banned from ever working a "serious" job in the art world. Then, image generation came and they lost all that money to imitators.

load more comments