this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
428 points (83.0% liked)

Technology

60060 readers
2912 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
428
We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
401 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
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

WB and Disney would lose, at least without an amendment to copyright law. That in fact just happened in one court case. It was ruled that using a copyrighted work to train AI does not violate that works copyright.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What do you think the trained model is other than a derived work?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there's nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.