zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
Copyright holders make all kinds of arguments for why they should be get money for incidental exposure to their work. This is all about greed and jealousy. If someone uses AI to make infringing content, existing laws already cover that. The fact that an ML model could be used to generate infringing content, and has exposure to or "knowledge" of some copyrighted material is immaterial. People just see someone else making money and want to try and get a piece of it.

>>andy99+gf
All I see is AI companies poorly justifying their grift that they know they don't want to pay for the content that they are commercializing without permission and pull the fair use excuses.

It is no wonder why OpenAI had to pay Shutterstock for training on their data and Getty suing Stability AI for training on their watermarked images and using it commercially without permission and actors / actresses filing lawsuits against commercial voice cloners which costs them close to nothing, as those companies either take down the cloned voice offering or shutdown.

These weak arguments from these AI folks sound like excuses justifying a newly found grift.

>>rvz+rh
Afaik Getty's case is strong against stability because they were dumb enough not to remove the water marks before training so now their model recreates their watermark, which is an infringement. Also let's not pretend openai licensed their dataset from all the stock image sites they scraped. The main reason they have a deal with Shutterstock is probably easy access and also Shutterstock partnered up with openai for ai tech to sell on their website.