Technology

37800 readers

89 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

AI art is derivative work, and claim that the authors of the works used to train the model shall have partial copyright over it too.

To me this is a potential can of worms. Humans can study and mimic art from other humans. It's a fundamental part of the learning process.

My understanding of modern AI image generation is that it's much more advanced than something like music sampling, it's not just an advanced cut and paste machine mashing art works together. How would you ever determine how much of a particular artists training data was used in the output?

If I create my own unique image in Jackson Pollock's style I own the entirety of that copyright, with Pollock owning nothing, no matter that everyone would recognize the resemblance in style. Why is AI different?

It feels like expanding the definition of derivative works is more likely to result in companies going after real artists who mimic or are otherwise inspired by Disney/Pixar/etc and attempting to claim partial copyright rather than protecting real artists from AI ripoffs.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[Warning: IANAL] The problem is that you guys assume that those generator models are doing something remotely similar to humans studying and mimicking art from other humans. They don't; at the end of the day the comparison with music sampling is fairly apt, even if more or less complex it's still the same in spirit.

Furthermore from a legal standpoint a human being is considered an agent. Software is at the best seen as a tool (or even less), not as an agent.

Quantifying "how much" of a particular artist's training data was used in the output is hard even for music sampling. Or for painting, plenty works fall in a grey area between original and derivative.

It feels like expanding the definition of derivative works is more likely to result in companies going after real artists who mimic or are otherwise inspired by Disney/Pixar/etc and attempting to claim partial copyright rather than protecting real artists from AI ripoffs.

Following this reasoning (it'll get misused by the American media mafia), it's simply better off to get rid of copyright laws altogether, and then create another legal protection to artists both against the American mafia and people using image generators to create rip-offs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Following this reasoning (it'll get misused by the American media mafia), it's simply better off to get rid of copyright laws altogether, and then create another legal protection to artists both against the American mafia and people using image generators to create rip-offs.

Certainly no disagreement from me on this point

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

To me this is a potential can of worms.