zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I don't see the point. There is a copyright (and in that regard most of these images are fine) and then there is trademark which they might violate.

Regardless, the human generating and publishing these images is obviously responsible to ensure they are not violating any IP property. So they might get sued by Disney. I don't get why the AI companies would be effected in any way. Disney is not suing Blender if I render an image of Mickey Mouse with it.

Though I am sure that artists might find an likely ally in Disney against the "AI"'s when they tell them about their idea of making art-styles copyright-able Being able to monopolize art styles would be indeed a dream come true for those huge corporations.

>>cardan+G3
It boils down to this: Do you need permission if you train your AI model with copyrighted things or not?

>>Tepix+B5
If you do need permission, is Page Rank a copyright infringing AI, or just a sparkling matrix multiplication derived entirely from everyone else's work?

>>ben_w+27
Page Rank doesn't reproduce any content claiming it's new.

You can however disallow Google from indexing your content using robots.txt a met tag in the HTML or an HTTP header.

Or you can ask Google to remove it from their indexes.

Your content will disappear from then on.

You can't un-train what's already been trained.

You can't disallow scraping for training.

The damage is already done and it's irreversible.

It's like trying to unbomb Hiroshima.

>>people+Pc
That's actually interesting, adding Metadata to the images as a check for allowing or disallowing ai usage

That might be a good way to go about it

>>CyanBi+1e
If you can make the metadata survive cropping, format shifts, and screenshots.

Can probably do all that well-enough (probably doesn't need to be perfect) by leaning on FAANG, with or without legislation.

But: opt-in by default, or opt-out by default?