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
Ehhh that’s like saying an artist who studies other art pieces and then creates something using combined techniques and styles from those set pieces is what ???? Now liable ???

>>gt565k+w6
An AI is not a person. Automated transformation does not remove the original copyright, otherwise decompilers would as well. That the process is similar to a real person is not actually important, because it's still an automated transformation by a computer program.

We might be able to argue that the computer program taking art as input and automatically generating art as output is the exact same as an artist some time after general intelligence is reached, until then, it's still a machine transformation and should be treated as such.

AI shouldn't be a legal avenue for copyright laundering.

>>Taywee+Z8
Except the machine is not automatically generating an input

> automatically generating art as output

The user is navigating the latent space to obtain said output, I don't know if that's transformative or not, but it is an important distinction

If the program were wholy automated as in it had a random number/words generator added to it and no navigation of the latent space by users happened, then yeah I would agree, but that's not the case at least so far as ml algos like midjourney or stable diffusion are concerned

>>CyanBi+Hb
The output is probably irrelevant here, the model itself is a derivative work from a copyright standpoint.

Going painting > raw photo (derivative work), raw photo > jpg (derivative work), jpg > model (derivative work), model > image (derivative work). At best you can make a fair use argument at that last step, but that falls apart if the resulting images harm the market for the original work.

>>Retric+md
It's not clear at all whether the model is a derivative work from a copyright standpoint. Maybe they are, may be they are not - it's definitely not settled, the law isn't very explicit and as far as I know, there is no reasonable precedent yet - and arguably that would be one of the key issues decided (and set as precedent) in these first court battles. I also wouldn't be surprised if it eventually doesn't matter what current law says as the major tech companies may lobby passing a law to explicitly define the rules of the game; I mean if Disney could lobby multiple copyright laws to protect their interests, then the ML-heavy tech companies, being much larger and more wealthy than Disney, can do it as well.

But currently, first, there is a reasonable argument that the model weights may be not copyrightable at all - it doesn't really fit the criteria of what copyright law protects, no creativity was used in making them, etc, in which case it can't be a derivative work and is effectively outside the scope of copyright law. Second, there is a reasonable argument that the model is a collection of facts about copyrighted works, equivalent to early (pre-computer) statistical ngram language models of copyrighted books used in e.g. lexicography - for which we have solid old legal precedent that creating such models are not derivative works (again, as a collection of facts isn't copyrightable) and thus can be done against the wishes of the authors.

Fair use criteria comes into play as conditions when it is permissible to violate the exclusive rights of the authors. However, if the model is not legally considered a derivative work according to copyright law criteria, then fair use conditions don't matter because in that case copyright law does not assert that making them is somehow restricted.

Note that in this case the resulting image might still be considered derivative work of an original image, even if the "tool-in-the-middle" is not derivative work.