zlacker

[return to "AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content"]
1. andy99+gf[view] [source] 2023-11-05 18:17:33
>>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.
◧◩
2. ethanb+of[view] [source] 2023-11-05 18:18:36
>>andy99+gf
> People just see someone else making money in a way that is completely dependent upon their own prior work and want to try and get a piece of it
◧◩◪
3. Ukv+Ho[view] [source] 2023-11-05 19:06:20
>>ethanb+of
> in a way that is completely dependent upon their own prior work

Ultimately information has to come from somewhere. If something has no information about what a "car" is, it cannot paint a car more successfully than a random guess. When you draw a car or write an algorithm to do so, you'll be slightly affected by the existing car designs you've seen. It's not a limitation specific to AI - it's just more obscured for humans since there's no explicit searchable database of all the cars you've glanced at.

Whether it was affected by (and dependant on in aggregate) prior work is not the standard for copyright infringement, and I'd claim would implicate essentially all action as infringement. Instead, it should be judged by whether there's substantial similarity - and if there is substantial similarity, then by the factors of fair use.

[go to top]