Skip Navigation
Technology @lemmy.world
L4sBot @lemmy.world
BOT

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
411 comments

  • There is no difference, a camcorder creates content, but it doesn't mean they're banned just because you can film a film with one.

    Yes I agree, it is not legal to replicate copyrighted works regardless.

    But again, human artists aren't illegal just because they can infringe copyright in a hypothetical scenario. Same with AI. The machine is non-infringing, the prompt operator can infringe copyright if they try, and then they are responsible under law, same as a human artist would be.

    The machine is blameless regardless of what it was trained on.

    • Nope. Camcorders do not create content. They record content. Camcorders do not create anything. That is a ridiculous claim. I cannot point a camcorder at you and have it make you look like Heath Ledger.

      AI creates content. It can make things that literally don't exist. If I tell it to make me Heath Ledger as The Joker fighting Jack Nicholson as the Joker, it can create it. A camcorder can't. A VCR can't. A hard drive can't. I have no idea why you don't understand the difference between creating content and recording content.

      I also said nothing about the AI itself being illegal, so I also have no idea where you're getting that from. I said it is violating copyright and trademark when it creates such images. Because it is.

      Hence the lawsuits. Hence the lack of such lawsuits against camcorders, VCRs and hard drives.

      • It flat out isn't lol, I don't know what to tell you bud, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and there was a lawsuit against VCRs:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

        In fact it's quite likely that the OpenAI decision will be based upon this.

        It's not that complicated to understand:

        AI trains on images (fair use) -> Prompter inserts prompt -> output can be copyright infringing or not, depending on the prompt, same as a brain, hard drive, VCR and an HDD.

        The metaphysics of what counts as creation vs recording are irrelevant, everything you're saying is just flat out irrelevant.

        • Yes, there was a lawsuit against VCRs. It had nothing to do with original content.

          AI trains on images (fair use)

          Nope, that is not in any legal definition of fair use.

          same as a brain, hard drive, VCR and an HDD.

          What prompt do I enter to get a VCR to make me a picture of Jack Nicholson's Joker fighting Heath Ledger's Joker?

          Do I press both rewind and fast forward at once to access the secret content generation menu?

          • You dress up and film it with your buddies and record it to a second gen tape lol? Again, the content generation aspect is irrelevant, what matters is whether a piece of equipment is made to infringe copyright or not, AI isn't, neither are VCRs, that's law, simple as really.

            And yes training is fair use, it better be, I train my brain on images all the time.

            • You dress up and film it with your buddies and record it to a second gen tape lol?

              Which means it is not creating content. It is recording content. Which was my point.

              And yes training is fair use, it better be, I train my brain on images all the time.

              Please back this up. Your brain is not a computer. Furthermore, even if it was, someone else would be training it and you cannot legally train someone else on copyrighted material that you have not licensed, which is why schools have to license textbooks and a teacher that teaches from an unlicensed textbook can be sued. That's the entire impetus for the Open Textbook Library. The Open Textbook Library would literally not need to exist if training material was not protected by copyright.

              You see, the problem here is that you keep claiming things that are the opposite of what these companies are getting sued for doing. And yet those suits aren't getting laughed out of court. Doesn't that tell you that maybe your ideas of how the law works here are wrong?

              I have been studying U.S. copyright and trademark law for over 15 years. How long have you been studying it?

              • You're creating a film that wasn't there before though? Recording is creation, I don't know what you think cameras do or how video is made 🙄

                Recording is creation too and it can all be IP infringing at any stage, it's all completely irrelevant how it was made in 99% of cases (exception being reverse engineering)

                Brain is absolutely just a computer lol. I look at images - I remember images, I'm influenced by images. Is that fair use? If so - so is AI, because that's all it does.

                laughed out of court

                Like the lawsuit against Stable Diffusion & Midjourney? You know, the class action one that was dismissed precisely because the end work (output) was non-infringing, and training itself (and by extension, the tech) was not an infringement?

                https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-pares-down-artists-ai-copyright-lawsuit-against-midjourney-stability-ai-2023-10-30/

                Educate yourself.

                Read up on the Sony vs United Studios too if you want to get in intro on law stuff. Start with Wikipedia. Then watch as this court case against OpenAI unfolds like I said it will.

                You keep banging on about the same few points that are all incorrect, proven time and time again, I have better things to do than to respond to this any further.

                I've been studying

                I guess you need to study it some more then, you don't even know the basics.

                I swear you reddit refugee armchair experts need to go back.

                • Recording is creation

                  Not according to the law. And if you disagree, find me the law that defines recording as creation.

                  Like the lawsuit against Stable Diffusion & Midjourney? You know, the class action one that was dismissed precisely because the end work (output) was non-infringing, and training itself (and by extension, the tech) was not an infringement?

                  One of many. One getting dismissed does not equal all getting dismissed.

                  Sony vs United Studios

                  Irrelevant to this subject. Original content was not at issue.

                  I swear you reddit refugee armchair experts need to go back.

                  This was literally directly connected to my own business for 15 years. One I ran legally. Because I made sure to study copyright and trademark law as much as possible so my company wouldn't ever violate it.

                  And since I'm a 'refugee armchair expert,' from where did you get your law degree? Feel free to answer unless you want to just insult me again.

411 comments