|
This touches on another wrinkle: can models themselves be legally protected? Keeping things simple, let's assume I only train a fresh model on public domain works such as Leonardo da Vinci, Monet, and Van Gogh. Do I have a copyright on that model?
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:https://vaisual.com/ Free distribution is not a defense against infringement. quote:This touches on another wrinkle: can models themselves be legally protected? Keeping things simple, let's assume I only train a fresh model on public domain works such as Leonardo da Vinci, Monet, and Van Gogh. Do I have a copyright on that model? That one could. Anything with folk's stuff? ESPECIALLY fear the europeans.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Free distribution is not a defense against infringement. Wow. Stop a minute and read. The site I just linked HAS RIGHTS TO THEIR IMAGES... I personally am going to use ENTIRELY PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:Wow. Stop a minute and read. The site I just linked HAS RIGHTS TO THEIR IMAGES... I personally am going to use ENTIRELY PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES. That you will get away with, but be bloody careful that you keep away from uses that infringe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
Do you even have an argument other than "ai bad" on repeat? And if that's your take then so what? It's not constructive to any discussion when you just shut it down and address literally every single point with: "ai bad."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
SubG posted:I understand that's what you're saying now. So using "These are tools created as systems for colonialism and capitalism" as the mic drop at the end of a post was just...rhetorical flourish? Non sequitur? We should have in mind what they can be used for when we think about how we should use them. In the foundations of cybernetics is the idea that tools actually have two parts. One is the tool. The other is the suite of ideas to use the tool effectively. So an example pair is electrical machinery (tool) and the assembly line (organizing idea for how to use the tool). When we think about how to use the tool (expert systems) we should have in mind it’s previous use with the organizing idea of colonialism. So that we don’t use it in the same ways. It’s often undesirable to use tools to remove humanity from our systems. This isn’t particularly controversial. It’s basic stuff from cybernetics works already posted earlier in the thread. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...ed%20in%201954. An alternative route to the same critique can be arrived at via religion, and I’ll make it interchangeably with this one, but it has a different foundation.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:That you will get away with, but be bloody careful that you keep away from uses that infringe. A big part that you are missing, even if you are using 'the ethical set' model which was NOT trained on specific works, you can still make images that would be considered infringing if you sit down and try to. Making an image is a completely seperate thing than turning around and attempting to sell or profit off that image. There already exists laws and legal frameworks to sue someone selling your copyrighted material.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:Do I have a copyright on that model? Patent
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:We should have in mind what they can be used for when we think about how we should use them. But feel free to pick some other example. I'm just looking for an application of the sort of analysis you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
SubG posted:But feel free to pick some other example. I'm just looking for an application of the sort of analysis you're talking about. The most famous is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:The issue is that you are stealing from other artists. You mean with the art? Again, i don’t think it’s that cut and dry. Take cozy pictures. It’s a genre of art. Witches in libraries, cats, that sort of thing. We all know that look, but I have no clue what one artist drew like that. I can look up a dozen different amateur artists who draw in that style. Now I want a hair dresser in that style, or a pastry shop, for say a cozy mystery book. I’ve looked (in theory) and there is no work out there that is what I want. So I go into stable diffusion, and I type in cozy pastry shop. From there, I tweak and so on. Add vector art that I’ve purchased and so on. You’re really calling one element of that stealing? As opposed to me just hand drawing a dozen times copying a direct picture, to nail the style with my own hand, but the computer doing that part for me makes it stealing? Because that sounds like the argument becomes on effort, rather than an IP issue, which becomes again really about gatekeeping effort, which is not a good argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:That you will get away with, but be bloody careful that you keep away from uses that infringe. Infringing in this hypothetical future where the laws have changed/been decided to make it infringement? I don't see this going the way you seem to (I can see some restrictions, some regulation, but not "delete all SD 1.5s from every hard drive immediately!") It's already a moot point as Adobe's model wasnt trained with any images they didn't have a license to, and at this point you're just making statements about some hypothetical future that we have no real sign of it coming other than it being what you want. Which, then, what's even the point? Yeah you better watch out in the future where it's illegal not to use AI. That's a pointless argument. That's basically just yours.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The most famous is nuclear power and nuclear weapons. As I understand it you're advocating for the position that we should consider the historical context in which tools were developed when evaluating how (and if) they should be used, with the implication that this is germane to the current discussion about recent developments in AI. I'm trying to coax an actual example of such an analysis out of you, presumably one that's illustrative of how similar analysis should be applied to AI. If you just don't want to provide such an analysis, that's cool. But I'm not sure why you're being so coy about it or if perhaps I'm just missing something.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Patent No, copyright. The specific model itself is under copyright law. Code is copyrightable. It would only be under patent law if you filed a patent for some technological advancement in making the model.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:Yeah you better watch out in the future where it's illegal not to use AI. LOL what is this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:LOL what is this poo poo. Read the whole thing. That's his argument, it's stupid on purpose. He's just making up a future that won't happen and then acting like that's just how it's gonna be. His argument is stupid in the same way that one is. You can make any argument that starts with "in the future assume x" and then make any kind of conclusion you want. Except for, that's stupid and not a real argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
SubG posted:perhaps I'm just missing something. It’s a concept from the foundations of cybernetics. The book I pointed you to: Human use of Human Beings is this analysis applied to automation of systems in general.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
In the future MegaDisneyCorp will copyright all text, art, videos, and music preemptively so that you NEED to use an AI to generate even an SMS less you be sued on the spot.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
Subg, you could do the barest of looking into it by pulling the wiki on the book.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
KillHour posted:No, copyright. The specific model itself is under copyright law. Code is copyrightable. It would only be under patent law if you filed a patent for some technological advancement in making the model. That’s amazing to me. These models are only copyrighted? They aren’t patenting these models?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Subg, you could do the barest of looking into it by pulling the wiki on the book.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:That’s amazing to me. These models are only copyrighted? They aren’t patenting these models? They're all the same technology, variations of the same thing, transformer models/diffusion models. So there really isn't any new method to patent.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:That’s amazing to me. These models are only copyrighted? They aren’t patenting these models? Even with an algorithmic patent, it’s extremely hard to prove anyone else is using it (it’s almost impossible to reach a level of evidence/suspicion to sue/get a subpoena) without access to the code. Getting a patent means you have to show the whole rear end of your algorithm, which is thus not a good idea given how easy it is to infringe. With a lot of this stuff, places like OpenAI will publish papers on sometimes innovative aspects of what they’re doing. However, if it’s anything like some places I’ve worked, they’re holding back some important but non-obvious practical details. They aren’t idiots. The concept of patents on algorithms is incoherent. “Math” results or techniques cannot be patented, but courts consider algorithms to not be part of math. Mathematicians and computer scientists disagree. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:You mean with the art? Again, i don’t think it’s that cut and dry. Take cozy pictures. It’s a genre of art. Witches in libraries, cats, that sort of thing. We all know that look, but I have no clue what one artist drew like that. I can look up a dozen different amateur artists who draw in that style. If your model ate someone's stuff and it emulates it, you are not covered under fair use. Capice?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:If your model ate someone's stuff and it emulates it, you are not covered under fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:If your model ate someone's stuff and it emulates it, you are not covered under fair use. You’re just saying “it’s stealing” again, without actually engaging. I’m saying, the machine is trained on a style. I’m asking for a version of that style, I’m then heavily modifying with my own hands. I’m saying, even in the recent court case, how much I modify it very much effects whether it’s fair use or not.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:If your model ate someone's stuff and it emulates it, you are not covered under fair use. Why? Like, legally
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Once again, that’s a fact that that only exists in your head. From what you are describing, all artistic influence is copyright infringement. That is what Warhol implies, nerd. BrainDance posted:Why? The Warhol precedent is liable to drive fair use in a direction against commercialization if it directly competes. StratGoatCom fucked around with this message at 01:59 on May 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
If the Warhol case implied that much and reached that far then, gently caress, arts basically dead in America now. AIs the least of your worries.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:If the Warhol case implied that much and reached that far then, gently caress, arts basically dead in America now. AIs the least of your worries. hahaha, no. Commercialization is the thing; it had massively slid too much toward transformation before; while it wasn't with AI in mind, the sort of precedent it sets is exactly what is needful in dealing with this tech.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:You’re just saying “it’s stealing” again, without actually engaging. I’m saying, the machine is trained on a style. I’m asking for a version of that style, I’m then heavily modifying with my own hands. I’m saying, even in the recent court case, how much I modify it very much effects whether it’s fair use or not. In the US, at least, the copyright office has ruled that all purely Generative AI output has no rights holder (and is thus effectively automatically in the public domain), citing the case Naruto v. David Slater et al. which created the legal precedent that only humans are afforded copyright over created works, and that AI Systems, like the monkey, created the works but aren't human. Using a generated work in your own work doesn't protect the generated content, but the rest of the human generated content is. So if you used an AI picture as is for your book cover in the US, that cover picture would be public domain and anyone else could use it without your permission, but obviously the book part of the book is still your copyright. Any other scenario (modifying a generated work yourself, and to what degree, for example) is currently untested and unaddressed by law and court precedent. I also have no idea how any non-US country legally treats GenAI works.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:In the US, at least, the copyright office has ruled that all purely Generative AI output has no rights holder (and is thus effectively automatically in the public domain), citing the case Naruto v. David Slater et al. which created the legal precedent that only humans are afforded copyright over created works, and that AI Systems, like the monkey, created the works but aren't human. Using a generated work in your own work doesn't protect the generated content, but the rest of the human generated content is. One thing to point out is that "the copyright office ruled" is not binding precedent. They will refuse to let you register something if you say it came straight out of Midjourney, but they can't actually prove if it did or not, and a court hasn't weighed in yet. I don't want to make predictions about the law, because the law doesn't actually have to reflect reality, but I have to imagine people are eventually going to realize that's loving stupid in the same way it was just pointed out that "algorithms aren't math" is stupid. For why the copyright office's opinion is stupid, their argument is actually "the raw output of a computer program can't be copyrighted," even if you wrote the computer program that produced it. So if I open up Inkscape and made a vector image, that image would be protected under copyright because I "made" it (in Inkscape). But if I wrote a C++ program that outputted the exact same vector image, I couldn't copyright it, because the computer apparently did that all on its own. I don't think it takes a lawyer to understand why that makes no sense. Edit: There might be some nuance about randomness that I missed in my example, so pretend I added some functions that distorted the output image and hit refresh until I got something I liked.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:In the US, at least, the copyright office has ruled that all purely Generative AI output has no rights holder (and is thus effectively automatically in the public domain), citing the case Naruto v. David Slater et al. which created the legal precedent that only humans are afforded copyright over created works, and that AI Systems, like the monkey, created the works but aren't human. Using a generated work in your own work doesn't protect the generated content, but the rest of the human generated content is. This is not at all the current justification for AI generated works being uncopyrightable. We covered this in probably this thread but a long time ago. The case that referenced the monkey selfie was the Thaler case, and only references that because Thaler is the kind of guy that makes absurd copyright requests to force them to make decisions. And so he explicitly claimed that the AI was the owner and creator. That there was no human authorship or involvement at all. This is irrelevant to most attempts to copyright AI generated work where the owner trying to copyright is a human. The USCO even mentioned this in their decision, that they could have tested whether it meets the human creative input requirements for it to get a copyright but that time they didn't, because even when they told him he really needs to list himself as they author he refused and so they had to make their decision based on the fact that the AI was the sole owner. That case barely affects any other real attempts to copyright AI generated works, it's basically no precedent for any of them except for knowing that the AI itself can't get a copyright. That's obviously still true but doesn't affect whether a human can be the author. And for that, there's a line somewhere of human involvement with one side being copyrightable and the other not. We don't know exactly where that line is yet. The Zarya of the Dawn thing is much more relevant. Which is where the "everything else is, but not the AI stuff" thing comes from, but that didn't involve the monkey selfie.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:hahaha, no. Commercialization is the thing; it had massively slid too much toward transformation before; while it wasn't with AI in mind, the sort of precedent it sets is exactly what is needful in dealing with this tech. As a specific example, a tremendous amount of the art we have from the Renaissance are portraits of rich people. You'd think that we'd have much more art concerning peasants, as they were the vast majority of the population at the time. I guess the artists must have had some kind of ulterior motive. I sure hope it wasn't anything commercial, because the artists' styles seemed to be influenced a lot by each other!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Literally everyone is just going to loving lie about it anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:Any other scenario (modifying a generated work yourself, and to what degree, for example) is currently untested and unaddressed by law and court precedent. I also have no idea how any non-US country legally treats GenAI works. Kris Kastanova, author of the "Zarya Of The Dawn" comic that the copyright office did rule on has started registration on a difference piece this time with img2img and ControlNet. No response back yet but that will be an important one for clearing the 'Ultimate Creative Control' bar the copyright office set. https://www.kris.art/portfolio-2/rose-enigma the registration letter is at the bottom and is a good read.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:If your model ate someone's stuff and it emulates it, you are not covered under fair use. I believe I've asked this a couple times now with no answer, but is it stealing if use an AI to emulate someone's work without your model eating it first? Or is it ok? What if you eat someone's work but then don't emulate it - still stealing? What if you hire an artist and link him to the sites of two other artists public galleries, essentially "feeding" him their artwork, and say you want a piece that's a fusion of those two styles? Is that still wrong and stealing, or does the fact that you're feeding a human make it alright? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:36 on May 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I believe I've asked this a couple times now with no answer, but is it stealing if use an AI to emulate someone's work without your model eating it first? Or is it ok? To actually answer this (to the best of my ability, given the current state of things and since I'm not a lawyer), it is copyright infringement to train an AI model on work you don't own the right to. It's pretty clear that this is true - the training of the model on the work is an unauthorized use, in the "watching a pirated movie" sense. Nobody is arguing that it isn't copyright infringement. The argument is that it's fair use. I think this is a subtle point that isn't well understood enough. Fair use doesn't mean you didn't infringe on copyright. Fair use means you did, but in a way and for a purpose that is compelling enough for the courts to tell the copyright holders to pound sand. In other words, fair use supersedes the author's rights. It's a subtle, but important distinction. GlyphGryph posted:What if you hire an artist and link him to the sites of two other artists public galleries, essentially "feeding" him their artwork, and say you want a piece that's a fusion of those two styles? Is that still wrong and stealing, or does the fact that you're feeding a human make it alright? This part is a good example, actually. Because the accurate comparison would be like if you wrote a script to scrape the public sites of artists and emailed the scraped archive to your artist. What the artist does isn't the copyright infringement. It's the scraping of the images into an archive that violates copyright. The open question is "Is creating an archive of copyrighted works so that it can be used to train an algorithm fair use?" Edit: I know you're asking about their opinion, not the law. Just thought it was an interesting point. KillHour fucked around with this message at 02:51 on May 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Literally everyone is just going to loving lie about it anyways. You do realize one of the things that can be done is making you cough up your drafts, right? They're not stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:Kris Kastanova, author of the "Zarya Of The Dawn" comic that the copyright office did rule on has started registration on a difference piece this time with img2img and ControlNet. No response back yet but that will be an important one for clearing the 'Ultimate Creative Control' bar the copyright office set. She will not make it in all likelihood.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 03:01
|
|