I think we have given it plenty of time for such a discussion and the amount of events and actions happening around training on copyrighted works from images, songs and deepfakes for the lawsuits and licensing deals to happen and it all converging to paying for the data; hence OpenAI and may others doing so due to risks in such lawsuits.
> AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning.
Copyright law does not care, nor is the overlying problem about using such a generative AI system for non-commercial uses such as for education or private use-cases. The line is being drawn as soon as it is commercialized and the fair use excuses fall apart. Even if the AI advances, so does the traceability methods and questions on the dataset being used. [0]
It costs musicians close to nothing to target and file lawsuits against commercial voice cloners. Not even training on copyrighted songs was an option for tools like DanceDiffusion [1] due to that same risk which is why training on public domain sounds audio was the safer alternative rather than run the risk of lawsuits and ask questions on the training set by tons of musicians.
[0] https://c2pa.org
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/stability-ai-gunning-for-a...
I don't see how this justifies needlessly divisive rhetoric.
No matter how long the disagreement lasts, you aren't my enemy because you have a different opinion on how we should handle this conundrum. I know you mean the best and are trying to help.
> Copyright law does not care
Copyright law works fine with AI outputs. As does trademark law. I don't see an AI making a fanart Simpsons drawing being any more novel a legal problem than the myriad of humans that do it on YouTube already. Or people who sell handmade Pokemon plushies on Etsy without Nintendo's permission.
But the question is on inputs and how the carve-outs of "transformative" and "educational use" can be interpreted — model training may very well be considered education or research. I think it's been made rather clear that nobody has a real answer to this, copyright law didn't particularly desire to address if an artist is "stealing" when they borrow influence from other artists and use similar styles or themes (without consent) for their own career.
I don't envy the judges or legislators involved in making these future-defining decisions.
What rhetoric? I am telling the hard truth of it.
> Copyright law works fine with AI outputs. As does trademark law. I don't see an AI making a fanart Simpsons drawing being any more novel a legal problem than the myriad of humans that do it on YouTube already. Or people who sell handmade Pokemon plushies on Etsy without Nintendo's permission.
How is running the risk of a lawsuit being enforced by the copyright holder meaning that it is OK to continue selling the works? Again, if it parodies and fan-art are in a non-commercial setting, then it isn't a problem. The problems start when you get to the commercial setting which in the case of Nintendo is known to be extremely litigious even in similarity, AI or not. [0] [1] [2] Then the question becomes: 'How long until it get caught if I commercialize this?' for both the model's inputs OR outputs.
That question was answered in Getty's case: They didn't need to request Stability's training set, since it is publicly available. Nintendo and other companies can simply ask for the original training data of closed models if they wanted to.
> But the question is on inputs and how the carve-outs of "transformative" and "educational use" can be interpreted — model training may very well be considered education or research.
As with the above, this is why C2PA and traceability is in the works for those same reasons [3] to determine where the source of the generative digital works were derived from its output.
> I think it's been made rather clear that nobody has a real answer to this, copyright law didn't particularly desire to address if an artist is "stealing" when they borrow influence from other artists and use similar styles or themes (without consent) for their own career.
So that explains the scrambling actions of these AI companies to not address these issues or be transparent about their data set and training data. (Except for Stability) Since that is where it is going.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/ae3bbp/the-pokmon-company-su...
[1] https://kotaku.com/pokemon-nintendo-china-tencent-netease-si...
[2] https://www.gameshub.com/news/news/pokemon-nft-game-pokeworl...
[3] https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-leg...