zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. jamesh+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-15 14:16:29
There's nothing wrong with the model knowing what Mickey Mouse looks like.

There are noninfringing usecases for generating images containing Mickey Mouse - not least, Disney themselves produce thousands of images containing the mouse's likeness every year; but also parody usecases exist.

But even if you are just using SD to generate images, if we want to make sure to avoid treading on Disney's toes, the AI would need to know what Mickey Mouse looks like in order to avoid infringing trademark, too. You can feed it negative weights already if you want to get 'cartoon mouse' but not have it look like Mickey.

The AI draws what you tell it to draw. You get to choose whether or not to publish the result (the AI doesn't automatically share its results with the world). You have the ultimate liability and credit for any images so produced.

replies(1): >>xg15+H2
2. xg15+H2[view] [source] 2022-12-15 14:28:26
>>jamesh+(OP)
Not a lawyer (and certainly no disney lawyer), but my understanding was that copyright is specifically concerned with how an image is created, less so that it is created. Which is why you can copyright certain recordings that only consist of silence. It just prevents you from using this record to base your own record of silence on, it doesn't generally block you from recording silence.

In the same way, making the model deliberately unable to generate Micky Mouse images would be much more far-reaching than just removing Micky imagery from the trainset.

replies(1): >>jamesh+C4
◧◩
3. jamesh+C4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-15 14:36:01
>>xg15+H2
Most Mickey Mouse image usage problems will be trademark infringement not copyright.

Copyright infringement does generally require you to have been aware of the work you were copying. So for sure there's an issue with using AI to generate art where you could use the tool to generate you an image, which you think looks original, because you are unaware of a similar original work, so you could not be guilty of copyright infringement - but if the AI model was trained on a dataset that includes an original copyrighted work that is similar, obviously it seems like someone has infringed something there.

But that's not what we're talking about in the case of mickey mouse imagery, is it? You're not asking for images of 'utterly original uncopyrighted untrademarked cartoon mouse with big ears' and then unknowingly publishing a mouse picture that the evil AI copied from Disney without your knowledge.

replies(1): >>xg15+ra
◧◩◪
4. xg15+ra[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-15 14:56:10
>>jamesh+C4
> But that's not what we're talking about in the case of mickey mouse imagery, is it? You're not asking for images of 'utterly original uncopyrighted untrademarked cartoon mouse with big ears' and then unknowingly publishing a mouse picture that the evil AI copied from Disney without your knowledge.

I think this is exactly the problem that many artists have with imagine generators. Yes, we could all easily identify if a generated artwork contained popular Disney characters - but that's because it's Disney, owners of some of the most well-known IP in the world. The same isn't true for small artists: There is a real risk that a model reproduces parts of a lesser known copyrighted work and the user doesn't realise it.

I think this is what artists are protesting: Their works have been used as training data and will now be parts of countless generated images, all with no permission and no compensation.

replies(2): >>jamesh+4J >>TchoBe+Gi1
◧◩◪◨
5. jamesh+4J[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-15 17:12:57
>>xg15+ra
Right.

So Disney don’t need to worry about AI art tools - so ‘attacking’ them with such tools does nothing.

◧◩◪◨
6. TchoBe+Gi1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-15 19:57:36
>>xg15+ra
This already happens all the time in the current status quo with no need for AI.
[go to top]