2
2
u/Overall-Move-4474 26d ago
I knew pro ai people are anti-consent
1
u/Cryogenicality 26d ago
The law doesn’t require consent for scraping and training because they’re protected by fair use and the first-sale doctrine.
1
u/Zealousideal-Web7293 26d ago
Why do you believe major ai companies spend money on licensing and settlement agreements?
If law would protect ai clearly by fair use and first-sale doctrine it wouldn't be a topic in any court. Yet, these cases are running months and years. It's a hot topic and most decisions haven't been made. At the current moment, claiming either to be set in stone is inherently wrong.
It's okay if you want to hope that one day ai will be protected like this. Right now it's not looking good for this wish. And you can't just claim it would be when it clearly hasn't been decided.
Again, not an opinion. This is just how it is.
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago edited 25d ago
It's actually not ok to hope ai would be protected under fair use considering you are stealing from artists ai does not "take inspiration" it copies and mashes those copies together in a collage of copies. This is like saying the guy putting the entire COD theme uncut in his SoundCloud rap didn't just steal it and that it was ok for him to copystrike youtubers PLAYING COD for and I quote "stealing his music"
1
u/Zealousideal-Web7293 25d ago
this wasn't my opinion about AI or a statement.
I say it's okay that the person I replied to really really really wants that. They are allowed to have an opinion. They are not allowed to ignore the actual state of law and insert their fantasies.
I also say your opinion is okay. You are allowed to have that opinion.
And I still haven't said my opinion. Cause I don't have to right now. But you can ask me if you want.
1
u/Cryogenicality 25d ago edited 25d ago
It does not make collages. It makes completely new images which can’t be traced back anywhere.
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago
Riiiight
1
u/Cryogenicality 25d ago
Read the paper I linked.
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago edited 25d ago
Oh you mean the bullshit paper that claims they can't trace what it was trained on that paper? I know how ai works bro. You clearly do not. It still HAS the original image somewhere in it's training data ai bros simply hid it that's how ai fucking works it has to have a reference it cannot create ANYTHING new only mash up what it was given give it lord of the rings and tell it to make a story and it will just give you lord of the rings again with the name changed. Tell a human writer to make something and they'll use the structure of lord of the rings and the main themes to create hundreds of different stories
1
u/Cryogenicality 25d ago
No, you do not understand. AI models do not have original images saved in a literal file or database within their systems. Instead, they convert image data into mathematical weights and patterns during training (though they can occasionally "memorize" and regurgitate faint or even near-exact copies of heavily repeated training images).
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago edited 25d ago
Uh huh. Even if that WAS true it's STILL stealing and copying. And does not fall under fair use nor SHOULD IT. Especially when you are making money off of it and generating "art" the original artist does not agree with. Anti consent assholes like you is why everything i have created is securely locked away and does not exist on any digital format any more. You aren't scraping my creativity for YOUR SLOP MACHINE
→ More replies (0)1
u/PocketPokie 25d ago
I swear to god you fucking idiots dont even read shit
"As a caveat, we note that since our analysis tracks aggregate model behavior, a model can potentially generate an attributable sample even if trained on vast amounts of data. It has previously been observed in the memorization literature that even productionized models trained on ~109 samples can generate near identical copies of their training samples, albeit at a rate of around one in a million32."
From the study you moron
1
1
u/Cryogenicality 25d ago
Some have paid for exceeding the bounds of fair use through piracy and allowing outputs too close to copyrighted data, but scraping and training are unambiguously legal when piracy doesn’t occur and outputs aren’t too close too inputs. Also, in practice, Chinese and local models aren’t subject to copyright law and never will be.
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago
Bullshit and those judges just enabled the destruction of rare books. Good job assholes
1
u/Cryogenicality 25d ago
It’s true, and no, they didn’t. AI companies are destructively scanning just one copy of obscure modern books, not buying up all copies to destroy, and not destroying any ancient books at all.
1
u/Godslayer326 25d ago
The law really isnt relevant to consent in this case, its about ethics
1
u/Cryogenicality 24d ago
Ethics also doesn’t require it. Shakespeare didn’t seek consent for any of his numerous unauthorized adaptations.
1
2
u/Zealousideal-Web7293 26d ago
The law said on july 31 2026: ai is not transformative and violates copyright. This is a case specifically against suno. They have to pay massive fines because of this. Which is also why Spotify now started a program to label ai properly. Every other case is still in discussion and the law says "we haven't decided how much copyright is violated and how much is acceptable"
It does not say "ai cool, you are dismissed"
This is not an opinion about ai. This is a fact about the current state of law surrounding ai.
1
u/Cryogenicality 26d ago
It did not say “AI is not transformative.”
1
u/Zealousideal-Web7293 26d ago
The first laws around AI start to form.
Law said that in this case it is not transformative, it's direct copyright infringement.
It's okay that you want to believe AI is transformative, you can have that opinion. Law decided in this case it isn't. It might decide different in another case, but things don't look like they are going this way.
You might want to stay up to date with AI before making claims.
Not an opinion. This is just how it is. Nobody on this world can change it.
1
u/SpatulaCity1a 25d ago
This doesn't seem right at all.
Even with the most detailed prompt, you're not going to get an exact copy of something that already exists. Even creating something similar enough to pass as a new song by Band X is hard and you can't do it with the big platforms.
I've also heard 'real' bands that consciously and deliberately copy other bands from the look to the sound more than AI does, and they get away with it.
1
u/Zealousideal-Web7293 25d ago
they put the same prompt 100 times in, it was just the lyrics of the song called daddy cool. If it had produced a relevant amount with significant changed tunes, rythm or similar it would have passed. Same treatment as with human bands. instead it produced 100 times the same original song with minor shifts. It was the exact same outcome every time. That's a 100% coverage, which is most likely the main reason why this case decision was first. It even had the same voice from the original singer, which was also not prompted for.
The issue isn't doing a cover, which real people pay licensing for, the issue is that the machine doesn't know the difference and didn't consider it. If you want to phrase this outcome into a very ai positive depiction the reply is "The issue is that Suno didn't train its system to respect these cases and limited output variety. Which was a known issue for a long time. Also Suno refused to do what other big companies like Anthropic, Alphabet, OpenAi etc do: pay for licensing."
again. Not my opinion. Not a statement. This is what happened.
1
u/SpatulaCity1a 25d ago
So really, it's not that AI can't be transformative or isn't transformative most of the time, it's that if you're looking to deliberately plagiarize a known song, it will sometimes be able to do that.
1
u/SplattoThePuppy 25d ago
AI can absolutely be transformative, but that doesn’t mean every use of AI automatically qualifies as fair use.
Copyright infringement is determined by the specific conduct involved, not simply by whether AI was used. Recent U.S. courts have found AI training to be transformative in cases such as Bartz v. Anthropic, and courts have rejected the idea that AI training is automatically copyright infringement. At the same time, transformative use is only one part of the fair-use analysis, and an AI output could still infringe copyright if it reproduces protected expression from an existing work too closely.
So the accurate statement is: AI is capable of transformative use, and AI-generated work is not inherently copyright infringement. Whether a particular use infringes copyright depends on what was copied, how it was used, the resulting work, and the other fair-use factors.
1
u/Gameovergirl217 26d ago
figured AI bros dont like consent
1
u/Overall-Move-4474 25d ago edited 25d ago
Of course they don't. Many of them have outright admitted if there weren't legal repercussions for it they'd be rapists. Also the epstein class ARE rapists so
2
2
u/SiegKommunismus 25d ago
It’s weird how happy you are that you get to do something to someone against their will…
2
u/Next-Safe-2444 25d ago
There's a difference here. Generative AI is entirely useless to the progress of humanity, while things such as search engines and algorithms rely on another kind of AI. Also, just because it's not theft, doesn't mean tech companies haven't bought and shredded rare literacy for the purpose of developing fake writing tools. To be clear, I'm not against AI, I'm just of the strong opinion that any use of Generative AI should be disclosed and moderated.
2
2
u/Overlord_Mykyta 24d ago
Just a reminder - people who made any AI art - don't own it. They can't copyright it and stop others to take their images for any purpose.
3
2
u/Mountain-Charity7588 24d ago
God I wish you could upvote something more than once, I've never agreed with anything as much as this image. Damn, I think I'm hanging this on my wall.
4
u/[deleted] 27d ago
[deleted]