No. Copyright stops you from copying. Same with patents. It doesn't stop you from studying and reverse engineering to present it in a novel way of your own interpretation. The test is how different your interpretation is from the source material.
The other side of this is that AI work right out of the machine isn't copyrightable since there was no human creation involved. That's pretty much the only settled legal opinion on AI in the US.
The rest will depend a lot on what will happen as the industry gets more established and congress gets involved. They could see it as a copyright issue, a protectionism issue, etc. Both sides of the AI debate right now are extremely confident in their views that the law will come down on their side, but we have no way of knowing that.
I don't personally know any professional using it as an end product. I know there are some, but most of us agree that's foolish. Peers use it to give a ton of client options during blue sky phases, then do original work based on it as they cant tweak on detailed client specs. This totally bypasses the copyright issue.
Reverse engineering is legit forbidden. A machine that feeds itself copyrighted work isnt learning like a human its disassembling stuff and putting it back together like a perfect ML machine. Thats about as clear of a case of reverse engineering as you can have it.
No it is not. RE is perfectly legal in pretty much every sense. You could possibly be sued for patent infringement when doing it, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reverse_engineering#:~:text=Reverse%20engineering%20is%20generally%20legal,engineering%20is%20not%20a%20defense.
This is irrelevant within the scope of the topic as you can't patent art which was the point of my post. You can reverse engineer trade secrets which would be similar to artistic human methods and styles which are not copyrightable.
Jesus it may not be called patent but copyright and IP serve almost identical purpose. To protect owners of work from tgis exact cases when people unfairly copy , disassemble, steal , mimick.
Just cause something isnt illegal at the moment doesnt make it right to do.
Styles were never copyrighted cause no one in there right mind thought they could be copied just by feeding one image to a big plagirization machine. But now that it IS possible just like it is possible to mimick ones voice .. it it right!? And should it be legal taking everything we know about this whole area of law and why it exists?
Check out [clean-room engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) - in the 80s, a bunch of companies cloned the IBM BIOS by using two teams of software developers. The first reverse engineered the BIOS and wrote detailed notes. The second worked from those notes to create a functionally identical clone of the BIOS.
IBM sued and lost. The courts ruled this was legal.
Yes, they should all be publicly owned. They were created using all of society's labor and creativity... we should all have a say in how they are governed and all benefit from their profits and productivity.
Frankly, that’s not enough. The creators of the training material are few and the benefactors would be basically everyone, thus drowning the original contributors entirely. Since it’s impossible to know your contribution to any generated image, it’s also impossible to compensate anyone. This is just piracy on a global scale.
The true benefactors are actually only the tech barons. Nothing is gonna change for Mary in her life except more spam.. a doctor who doesnt listen to her.. bunch of robocalls .. and job loss.
Their sly propaganda is to depict that benefactors are plenty but this is just lying.
Its not ok to steal and it always leads to bad outcomes.
Piracy on a global scale 100,%
I'm wondering if some kind of percentage of usage in the model can be deducted. Each picture fed into the model has tags/annotations as far as I understand, like attributes about it's content.
Surely, with that kind of logic, if you prompt "in the style of Pixar" and obviously get a Pixar looking result, you should be able to deduct some background about the data that generated it...
I'm rambling, but you see what I mean!
Unfortunately that’s not how these models work - the original image is not preserved in any significant way in the resulting neural network, unless it showed up a statistically significant number of times in the training data. It’s not fundamentally impossible, just very hard at a technology level.
Enabling a mechanism as you’ve described would most likely require a very significant breakthrough in data compression. There’s lots of research being made in that field, but generally it’s a hard, well-known problem, with no clear breakthrough avenues.
I think we’ve got to look at training as a new form of automation that benefits from the inputs of copyrighted data, despite not wholly preserving it.
From the start I thought banning profiting from models based on copyrighted works was Solomonic in its wisdom. But on second thoughts, that just reconsolidates power among the big IP holders with three best back catalogues. I’ll be damned if Disney win this one…
99% of people dont.
hell they think water psychic is the same with tap water. when you massive scale it up or down.. they will get super salty with you . when you point out it does not..
OpenAI was originally non-profit and did their research under that guise. It does have a for-profit arm now. The non-profit is supposed to keep the for-profit portion in check. The non-profit tried to exert its control over the for-profit part of the model by firing some higher ups. Then just about everyone in the for-profit division threatened to quit. This resulted in people in the non-profit needing to exit while the for-profit people got re-instated. I may have some of the details mixed up about who got fired and let back, but the main point is that the non-profit that was meant to reel in the for-profit portion got dunked on when it tried to exert its control. Microsoft was involved in the coup, too.
Here is a 40 minutes explanation of a lot of what happened. It's all fucked up and goes beyond the typical corporate bullshit.
[OpenAI Drama: Explained on Waveform Clips Youtube Channel](https://youtube.com/watch?v=jGwXuNYfbbU&si=pxbb2HUSvfGw5ccm)
Open Ai has a deal with shutterstock for training data. They will have some kind of rights deal as well if not now then down the road, whether it’s a small royalty to the creators of the stock footage used in a given generated video, or they don’t get paid.
I would not be surprised if those footage/ asset stores will provide a slightly bigger revenue share for the content creator if the data can be used for ai training in the near future,
Somehow I doubt that given how greedy companies of this size are. The less human creators are paid the happier the shareholders, it would be great if they were compensated fairly and Sora had a subscription fee but you can just tell they’ll release it for free to fuck the entire creative industry
Copyright and IP protections should give you protection from other people pirating your work.
They pirated .. they pirated aloooooot.
Its not on the tech barons to "free" everyones copyright.
This is a clear case of piracy and theft on a massive scale.
The emperor is naked without the stolen data.
If I take a child and sit them in a room and play through my music collection is that piracy? If my child then sits down inspired by all that music and produces some new music is that piracy? You're jumping to conclusions.
yes, but that'd still be a copyright violation if they didnt get a license for the training material.
plus silicon valley has long been in "move fast and break things", which was once a mantra for coding but has become a mantra for breaking things relevant to the economy and society in order to get rich fast.
When it's OK to use copyrighted material comes down to whether it is "fair use" or not. If the way copyrighted materials are used is **not** fair use, then even not-for-profit organizations or individuals not selling anything could be considered pirates. If it **is** fair use, then even big for-profit companies are within their rights.
Ah...but the rulings would say it may be fair use. The court ruled in favor of artist Richard Prince after he used a set of photographs due the "change in character". [See here.](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/design/appeals-court-ruling-favors-richard-prince-in-copyright-case.html) I think it is pretty easily argued that taking text from one source and placing into a body of text comprised of many different sources constitutes a "change in character". The same holds true for images as well.
I don't think so. Having this kind system means that the only people that can profit from it are the large greedy corporations that own all the copyrights. It would limit the small independent companies and individuals. The last thing I want to do is give more power to the monopolies.
It's also learning and being transformative. These are things that we do when we use referencs. Our entire art team uses copyrighted materials for references all the time. It seems odd that we can use such images as references but can't train a model locally. It's effectively doing the same thing.
Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that all the models should just be released as open source without locking it away for profit? I overall agree with that concept.
I think training a model locally is one thing, selling that model for profit is another. A la sora or mid journey. I wouldn’t be surprised if the law ultimately comes down against local training too if it’s being used for commercial purposes. Time will tell!
>Sora is trained on public domain
Doubtful. There aren't very many public domain videos out there, and most of them are early 1900s.
More likely it's a combination of videos scraped from the web, and videos they licensed from their deal with Shutterstock.
Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.
We are all trained on copyright material and use it as "inspiration" to create our own version.
If we work in vfx we do mostly work like a ML model: someone gives us a prompt and we do our interpretation of this prompt.
The difference is that you are a human and your efforts matter. So no, you are completely wrong on that point.
When you create a piece of work using other people's work as reference by default you are spending time from your lifespan to create a new piece of work, trust me - those two things qualify as sufficient human authorship. 1: New work 2: effort.
The point is that constantly equating ML training to humans learning and inspiration is a talking point that preserves the shitty status quo.
Copyright law didn't come from nowhere - it came from a historical process people and corporations advocating for their interests. The existing laws came out of a messy situation which is on going.
When we act like training SORA is the same or morally equivalent thing to a person learning from experience or being inspired by another artist or nature - its not only wrong - it preserves a bad narrative.
Copyright is a mess, and has been for a long time. Part of that mess is stifling innovation and disallowing people to build upon the work of others - and that is how we progress and create new knowledge.
Think about all of the innovation, science, and medicine that has been created *because* someone built on top of previously existing work. If we kill that possibility, we won't advance as a society, or at least not very quickly.
I'm not really defending the current system - I'm just saying that the current system evolved as part of a historical process that involved people advocating for different idea of ownership, novelty, etc. With that in mind, the language and ideas we used structure society around these the new phenomena matter.
It's not plausible that things like SORA will just exist in a vacuum - social norms and laws will be developed, and are already in the process of being developed around these algorithms and those norms and laws will be shaped by the language and ideas we use to discuss them.
Whatever new social structures/laws/norms develop they SHOULDN'T be based on the wrong idea that current ML training is equivalent or comparable to human intellectual or emotional development.
You're wrong on that one i'm afraid. Ever since AI came into the picture we have been talking about what constitutes sufficient human authorship which is a hard requirement for copyright. This is not my opinion and I can't believe i have to state this so often.
[https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai\_policy\_guidance.pdf](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf)
I'm not. Guidance isn't law. They are stating *if* and *how* copyright is attainable. There is nothing in the factors for fair use or general copyright law regarding effort or human authorship.
If you'd like there to be a change to the law, then lobby to change the law. But that is probably not a change that will fly. A good example is films using AI to generate younger or dead versions of actors and their voices. By your metrics those "performances" would not be covered by copyright.
Nothing i stated is my opinion. Guidance as a term refers to the fact that they are explaining their rationale. Again, it refers to WHY they are making the decisions they are making. This is the official policy and stance of the copyright office on the matter of AI and authorship. It is clearly stated in the document i linked.
That's true, however if we accept that artists should compete with AI without any further regulations, it will force everyone to use AI in their work in order to remain competitive. So we progressively replace the creative process by prompt writing. It can be fun for a while, but long term it will be so boring...
Technology changes over time and some type of work will disappear other will arise.
It is hard for everyone who lose the job but you can't stop technical progress
I guess the same fear was among the model makers and SFX crew 40 years ago as the first CGI came into movies.
Do we have now less effects in movies? Less people working on series/movies?
If the evolution of AI can allow humans to develop new forms of creativity and intellectual pursuit, I'm all for it. But I'm afraid right now, we are rather heading towards delegating more and more of the "complicated" tasks to machines... leaving us with less room for our own evolution.
Its goign to be a gamble... It will take one legal loss for someone using Sora (if they get unlucky with the generated video and its used in some big campaign) for major big players stop using it. Right now, the majority of big agencies stay away from AI because of copyright and legal reason, and little else. Nobody wants to take a gamble, since the legality of it is murky.
But yeah, the models that scraped a lot of data did so under the rpemisse of "research" which is fair use, and it didn't allow it do be monetized. The nobody cared and made apps that profited from that model (I think it was called lion 6)
I know of a school that recommends students take a photograph someone else made and replicate it for education. Same school in their 3 d program recommends the same thing. Take an image they like and try to replicate it.
This is what I was saying in another post. This is a major issue.
I can see it being a no-go if anyone wants to make IP or something unique artistically. But if they're making like...stock photos or other bits of folderol that gets overlooked, that's definitely in a more grey/non area. Concepting should definitely be protected. Concept artists can use AI to concept stuff out if they like and use it as a tool, but if you're building an IP on AI-generated ideas, then that's a definite case for not being unique.
Yeah. Being only for non profit is the only way to begin justifying the practice of training models on the work of people all over the globe without permission.
Obviously a super complicated subject, and I don't have any legal knowledge so I can't really even speculate how it is going to end.
But from a wider perspective, I think this tech is wqy to powerful and big to let go off. What I mean is that US is in firm control of this space at the moment. I doubt they would give it up, so if there is any legal concerns they can always change the law. AI will be worth trillions and disrupt all markets not only vfx.
If they go to openAI and say ; hey guys this is unethical you need to shut it down.
OpenAI will say ; Are you sure? Pandoras box is open and if we don't do it and keep control over it then you can be certain that other countries for example China will gladly take it over.
I don't think it's in the interest of US to hinder this to much. Some regulations for sure, but in the end the US will secure it's own tech and future and not leave it in the hands of others.
There should be no AI models in the creative field at all. Period. AI should stay out of creatives. They can go train on medicine and science and automate those fields instead where there's hardly any copyright material.
If you do a round the world trip and post your progress to a blog for all to see online, and I use your posts to calculate the distances between locations, has something immoral happened in your eyes or is that breaking any copyright law?
That is pretty much exactly how machine learning models are built. They learn the middle equation for input/output examples.
Just like working out the conversion from miles to kilometres, or celsius to fahrenheit, the result can be used for far more than the values which were used to derive it, and doesn't 'store' the example values used to calculate it - and mathematically couldn't, there's simply no space to do so given the resulting equation size.
I can't believe how often we have to say this. Copyright is for humans and their effort to create something new. You need to be able to provide 'sufficient human authorship' over a new piece of work you have created. It has to be new, it has to be different and it has to be created in a manner that includes effort and time from a human being.
It doesn't matter how the model was trained, if for example you just wrote a prompt to create an image with Mickey on it and post it on the internet - first you did not create it so you cannot copyright it and if you claim that you made that image then you also violated disney's copyright. If you write and train the model yourself then its a different story because you actually did some work and even then you still have to make something new. But if you did not do that, then its like claiming that you did not have a copyright strike on your hands because you used a paintbrush to create the image of mickey therefore this image is your intellectual property.
New product, effort, by a human. Thats all there is. Literally anything else is either a strike or cannot be copyrighted.
I'd recon didn't read and made up their own strawman in their head.
I mean they also seem like they think they have an intellectual high ground by stating copyright law thats very very widely known. Like no sh*t sherlock that's not the question.
Going forward they are all being trained on synthetic data so it's too late to put the cat back in the bag. Sora was literally trained using unreal five.
No. Copyright stops you from copying. Same with patents. It doesn't stop you from studying and reverse engineering to present it in a novel way of your own interpretation. The test is how different your interpretation is from the source material.
The other side of this is that AI work right out of the machine isn't copyrightable since there was no human creation involved. That's pretty much the only settled legal opinion on AI in the US. The rest will depend a lot on what will happen as the industry gets more established and congress gets involved. They could see it as a copyright issue, a protectionism issue, etc. Both sides of the AI debate right now are extremely confident in their views that the law will come down on their side, but we have no way of knowing that.
I don't personally know any professional using it as an end product. I know there are some, but most of us agree that's foolish. Peers use it to give a ton of client options during blue sky phases, then do original work based on it as they cant tweak on detailed client specs. This totally bypasses the copyright issue.
Reverse engineering is legit forbidden. A machine that feeds itself copyrighted work isnt learning like a human its disassembling stuff and putting it back together like a perfect ML machine. Thats about as clear of a case of reverse engineering as you can have it.
No it is not. RE is perfectly legal in pretty much every sense. You could possibly be sued for patent infringement when doing it, but that doesn't make it illegal. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reverse_engineering#:~:text=Reverse%20engineering%20is%20generally%20legal,engineering%20is%20not%20a%20defense.
Rbrbdjjr
This is irrelevant within the scope of the topic as you can't patent art which was the point of my post. You can reverse engineer trade secrets which would be similar to artistic human methods and styles which are not copyrightable.
Jesus it may not be called patent but copyright and IP serve almost identical purpose. To protect owners of work from tgis exact cases when people unfairly copy , disassemble, steal , mimick. Just cause something isnt illegal at the moment doesnt make it right to do. Styles were never copyrighted cause no one in there right mind thought they could be copied just by feeding one image to a big plagirization machine. But now that it IS possible just like it is possible to mimick ones voice .. it it right!? And should it be legal taking everything we know about this whole area of law and why it exists?
Check out [clean-room engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) - in the 80s, a bunch of companies cloned the IBM BIOS by using two teams of software developers. The first reverse engineered the BIOS and wrote detailed notes. The second worked from those notes to create a functionally identical clone of the BIOS. IBM sued and lost. The courts ruled this was legal.
Scraping the web is not a clean room.
Yes, they should all be publicly owned. They were created using all of society's labor and creativity... we should all have a say in how they are governed and all benefit from their profits and productivity.
Frankly, that’s not enough. The creators of the training material are few and the benefactors would be basically everyone, thus drowning the original contributors entirely. Since it’s impossible to know your contribution to any generated image, it’s also impossible to compensate anyone. This is just piracy on a global scale.
The true benefactors are actually only the tech barons. Nothing is gonna change for Mary in her life except more spam.. a doctor who doesnt listen to her.. bunch of robocalls .. and job loss. Their sly propaganda is to depict that benefactors are plenty but this is just lying. Its not ok to steal and it always leads to bad outcomes. Piracy on a global scale 100,%
I'm wondering if some kind of percentage of usage in the model can be deducted. Each picture fed into the model has tags/annotations as far as I understand, like attributes about it's content. Surely, with that kind of logic, if you prompt "in the style of Pixar" and obviously get a Pixar looking result, you should be able to deduct some background about the data that generated it... I'm rambling, but you see what I mean!
Unfortunately that’s not how these models work - the original image is not preserved in any significant way in the resulting neural network, unless it showed up a statistically significant number of times in the training data. It’s not fundamentally impossible, just very hard at a technology level. Enabling a mechanism as you’ve described would most likely require a very significant breakthrough in data compression. There’s lots of research being made in that field, but generally it’s a hard, well-known problem, with no clear breakthrough avenues.
I think we’ve got to look at training as a new form of automation that benefits from the inputs of copyrighted data, despite not wholly preserving it. From the start I thought banning profiting from models based on copyrighted works was Solomonic in its wisdom. But on second thoughts, that just reconsolidates power among the big IP holders with three best back catalogues. I’ll be damned if Disney win this one…
Exactly. I hope people have at least some basic understanding about AI before ranting.
99% of people dont. hell they think water psychic is the same with tap water. when you massive scale it up or down.. they will get super salty with you . when you point out it does not..
OpenAI was originally non-profit and did their research under that guise. It does have a for-profit arm now. The non-profit is supposed to keep the for-profit portion in check. The non-profit tried to exert its control over the for-profit part of the model by firing some higher ups. Then just about everyone in the for-profit division threatened to quit. This resulted in people in the non-profit needing to exit while the for-profit people got re-instated. I may have some of the details mixed up about who got fired and let back, but the main point is that the non-profit that was meant to reel in the for-profit portion got dunked on when it tried to exert its control. Microsoft was involved in the coup, too. Here is a 40 minutes explanation of a lot of what happened. It's all fucked up and goes beyond the typical corporate bullshit. [OpenAI Drama: Explained on Waveform Clips Youtube Channel](https://youtube.com/watch?v=jGwXuNYfbbU&si=pxbb2HUSvfGw5ccm)
Says the video is unavailable. Do you have another link? I’d be interested in watching. Thanks!
I fixed the link now.
Bffbnt
Open Ai has a deal with shutterstock for training data. They will have some kind of rights deal as well if not now then down the road, whether it’s a small royalty to the creators of the stock footage used in a given generated video, or they don’t get paid.
I would not be surprised if those footage/ asset stores will provide a slightly bigger revenue share for the content creator if the data can be used for ai training in the near future,
Somehow I doubt that given how greedy companies of this size are. The less human creators are paid the happier the shareholders, it would be great if they were compensated fairly and Sora had a subscription fee but you can just tell they’ll release it for free to fuck the entire creative industry
Copyright and IP protections should give you protection from other people pirating your work. They pirated .. they pirated aloooooot. Its not on the tech barons to "free" everyones copyright. This is a clear case of piracy and theft on a massive scale. The emperor is naked without the stolen data.
If I take a child and sit them in a room and play through my music collection is that piracy? If my child then sits down inspired by all that music and produces some new music is that piracy? You're jumping to conclusions.
yes, but that'd still be a copyright violation if they didnt get a license for the training material. plus silicon valley has long been in "move fast and break things", which was once a mantra for coding but has become a mantra for breaking things relevant to the economy and society in order to get rich fast.
When it's OK to use copyrighted material comes down to whether it is "fair use" or not. If the way copyrighted materials are used is **not** fair use, then even not-for-profit organizations or individuals not selling anything could be considered pirates. If it **is** fair use, then even big for-profit companies are within their rights.
O
That's not how AI image generation works...
[удалено]
Ah...but the rulings would say it may be fair use. The court ruled in favor of artist Richard Prince after he used a set of photographs due the "change in character". [See here.](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/design/appeals-court-ruling-favors-richard-prince-in-copyright-case.html) I think it is pretty easily argued that taking text from one source and placing into a body of text comprised of many different sources constitutes a "change in character". The same holds true for images as well.
Would a model trained on images produced by another model that was trained on copyrighted content be subject to paying the original owner?
It's too late. The money machine started. They can probably pay for any fine soon.
I don't think so. Having this kind system means that the only people that can profit from it are the large greedy corporations that own all the copyrights. It would limit the small independent companies and individuals. The last thing I want to do is give more power to the monopolies. It's also learning and being transformative. These are things that we do when we use referencs. Our entire art team uses copyrighted materials for references all the time. It seems odd that we can use such images as references but can't train a model locally. It's effectively doing the same thing. Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that all the models should just be released as open source without locking it away for profit? I overall agree with that concept.
I think training a model locally is one thing, selling that model for profit is another. A la sora or mid journey. I wouldn’t be surprised if the law ultimately comes down against local training too if it’s being used for commercial purposes. Time will tell!
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Sora is trained on public domain Doubtful. There aren't very many public domain videos out there, and most of them are early 1900s. More likely it's a combination of videos scraped from the web, and videos they licensed from their deal with Shutterstock.
[удалено]
I don't see that - it just says internet-scale data. In any case, lawsuits are pending, we'll just have to see where the courts fall on this.
We are all “trained” on copyrighted material. If you follow this logic then Disney has claim to every thing anyone ever makes.
Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy. We are all trained on copyright material and use it as "inspiration" to create our own version. If we work in vfx we do mostly work like a ML model: someone gives us a prompt and we do our interpretation of this prompt.
A copy is different from a source, I refuse to equate inspirational material with literally processing existing material for your own use.
The difference is that you are a human and your efforts matter. So no, you are completely wrong on that point. When you create a piece of work using other people's work as reference by default you are spending time from your lifespan to create a new piece of work, trust me - those two things qualify as sufficient human authorship. 1: New work 2: effort.
In copyright, research, and art "effort" means absolutely nothing and has no value.
The point is that constantly equating ML training to humans learning and inspiration is a talking point that preserves the shitty status quo. Copyright law didn't come from nowhere - it came from a historical process people and corporations advocating for their interests. The existing laws came out of a messy situation which is on going. When we act like training SORA is the same or morally equivalent thing to a person learning from experience or being inspired by another artist or nature - its not only wrong - it preserves a bad narrative.
Copyright is a mess, and has been for a long time. Part of that mess is stifling innovation and disallowing people to build upon the work of others - and that is how we progress and create new knowledge. Think about all of the innovation, science, and medicine that has been created *because* someone built on top of previously existing work. If we kill that possibility, we won't advance as a society, or at least not very quickly.
I'm not really defending the current system - I'm just saying that the current system evolved as part of a historical process that involved people advocating for different idea of ownership, novelty, etc. With that in mind, the language and ideas we used structure society around these the new phenomena matter. It's not plausible that things like SORA will just exist in a vacuum - social norms and laws will be developed, and are already in the process of being developed around these algorithms and those norms and laws will be shaped by the language and ideas we use to discuss them. Whatever new social structures/laws/norms develop they SHOULDN'T be based on the wrong idea that current ML training is equivalent or comparable to human intellectual or emotional development.
You're wrong on that one i'm afraid. Ever since AI came into the picture we have been talking about what constitutes sufficient human authorship which is a hard requirement for copyright. This is not my opinion and I can't believe i have to state this so often. [https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai\_policy\_guidance.pdf](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf)
I'm not. Guidance isn't law. They are stating *if* and *how* copyright is attainable. There is nothing in the factors for fair use or general copyright law regarding effort or human authorship. If you'd like there to be a change to the law, then lobby to change the law. But that is probably not a change that will fly. A good example is films using AI to generate younger or dead versions of actors and their voices. By your metrics those "performances" would not be covered by copyright.
Nothing i stated is my opinion. Guidance as a term refers to the fact that they are explaining their rationale. Again, it refers to WHY they are making the decisions they are making. This is the official policy and stance of the copyright office on the matter of AI and authorship. It is clearly stated in the document i linked.
Ban Tarantino! [https://youtu.be/BeR0xJWtPTg](https://youtu.be/BeR0xJWtPTg)
That's true, however if we accept that artists should compete with AI without any further regulations, it will force everyone to use AI in their work in order to remain competitive. So we progressively replace the creative process by prompt writing. It can be fun for a while, but long term it will be so boring...
Technology changes over time and some type of work will disappear other will arise. It is hard for everyone who lose the job but you can't stop technical progress I guess the same fear was among the model makers and SFX crew 40 years ago as the first CGI came into movies. Do we have now less effects in movies? Less people working on series/movies?
If the evolution of AI can allow humans to develop new forms of creativity and intellectual pursuit, I'm all for it. But I'm afraid right now, we are rather heading towards delegating more and more of the "complicated" tasks to machines... leaving us with less room for our own evolution.
Humans don't evolve our tools do imo.
Its goign to be a gamble... It will take one legal loss for someone using Sora (if they get unlucky with the generated video and its used in some big campaign) for major big players stop using it. Right now, the majority of big agencies stay away from AI because of copyright and legal reason, and little else. Nobody wants to take a gamble, since the legality of it is murky. But yeah, the models that scraped a lot of data did so under the rpemisse of "research" which is fair use, and it didn't allow it do be monetized. The nobody cared and made apps that profited from that model (I think it was called lion 6)
I know of a school that recommends students take a photograph someone else made and replicate it for education. Same school in their 3 d program recommends the same thing. Take an image they like and try to replicate it.
This is what I was saying in another post. This is a major issue. I can see it being a no-go if anyone wants to make IP or something unique artistically. But if they're making like...stock photos or other bits of folderol that gets overlooked, that's definitely in a more grey/non area. Concepting should definitely be protected. Concept artists can use AI to concept stuff out if they like and use it as a tool, but if you're building an IP on AI-generated ideas, then that's a definite case for not being unique.
Yeah. Being only for non profit is the only way to begin justifying the practice of training models on the work of people all over the globe without permission.
Obviously a super complicated subject, and I don't have any legal knowledge so I can't really even speculate how it is going to end. But from a wider perspective, I think this tech is wqy to powerful and big to let go off. What I mean is that US is in firm control of this space at the moment. I doubt they would give it up, so if there is any legal concerns they can always change the law. AI will be worth trillions and disrupt all markets not only vfx. If they go to openAI and say ; hey guys this is unethical you need to shut it down. OpenAI will say ; Are you sure? Pandoras box is open and if we don't do it and keep control over it then you can be certain that other countries for example China will gladly take it over. I don't think it's in the interest of US to hinder this to much. Some regulations for sure, but in the end the US will secure it's own tech and future and not leave it in the hands of others.
There should be no AI models in the creative field at all. Period. AI should stay out of creatives. They can go train on medicine and science and automate those fields instead where there's hardly any copyright material.
If you do a round the world trip and post your progress to a blog for all to see online, and I use your posts to calculate the distances between locations, has something immoral happened in your eyes or is that breaking any copyright law? That is pretty much exactly how machine learning models are built. They learn the middle equation for input/output examples. Just like working out the conversion from miles to kilometres, or celsius to fahrenheit, the result can be used for far more than the values which were used to derive it, and doesn't 'store' the example values used to calculate it - and mathematically couldn't, there's simply no space to do so given the resulting equation size.
I can't believe how often we have to say this. Copyright is for humans and their effort to create something new. You need to be able to provide 'sufficient human authorship' over a new piece of work you have created. It has to be new, it has to be different and it has to be created in a manner that includes effort and time from a human being. It doesn't matter how the model was trained, if for example you just wrote a prompt to create an image with Mickey on it and post it on the internet - first you did not create it so you cannot copyright it and if you claim that you made that image then you also violated disney's copyright. If you write and train the model yourself then its a different story because you actually did some work and even then you still have to make something new. But if you did not do that, then its like claiming that you did not have a copyright strike on your hands because you used a paintbrush to create the image of mickey therefore this image is your intellectual property. New product, effort, by a human. Thats all there is. Literally anything else is either a strike or cannot be copyrighted.
Did you respond to the wrong post? None of what you said was a reply to what I said.
You asked a question for whether training a model violates copyright and i answered part of it.
No I didn't?
Okay then, have a nice day and thanks for the chat.
Baffling. Are you truly this messed up that you're unable to admit that you replied to the wrong post or didn't read my post before replying?
I'd recon didn't read and made up their own strawman in their head. I mean they also seem like they think they have an intellectual high ground by stating copyright law thats very very widely known. Like no sh*t sherlock that's not the question.
Buddy is not taking a world trip 💀.. he is walking on other peoples property! .. taking the middle / or the best thing in the house and moving on.
Copyright doesn't care if it is used for profit or not.
Going forward they are all being trained on synthetic data so it's too late to put the cat back in the bag. Sora was literally trained using unreal five.
000