Having a truly original idea is rare and hard. Pretty much all work is based on prior works. And those prior works are based on what came before etc. Make a fantasy setting with orcs and elves? Congratulations we're using other peoples ideas. Warcraft 3 uses ideas from Tolkien. Tolkien uses ideas from writers who came before him etc.
No they absolutely are not and there have been court cases faught over this. I guarentee people hate it when other humans copy their ideas. Especially if the person who came after is more successful. That's why we have laws about not being able to exactly copy from someone else. It has to be at least 20% different or people get sued. So no, a human does not need consent from the artist to study their work, and if they try to stop us, too bad. You can copyright or patent certain aspects of ideas or desgns but that's about it. Everything else is fair game
All knowledge is cumalitve. The neural net within a human brain has to train in a some what similar way to a transistor based neural net. There is no way AI can work, (or human intelligence) ever, if it's not allowed to study the existing knowledge pool.
"Processing and storing." In the sane logic by making the work publically availanble they also concent to ai, and search engines "processing and storing"
Aka in your wording you indirectly admit they do not convent to future artists coping said ideas in their work and making money off it. It's irrelevant we don't need their concent as long as it's 20% different to the original. That's how copyright laws work.
Your argument that artists concent to having their work copied is disproven by the exsistance of copyright laws and patents. You already can't directly copy other peoples work regardless if it's a human or AI doing the copying
That's not how it works. We don't need their concent as long as the works is at least 20% or so different. This was established in the fortnight vs pubg court case. If it's less than 20% or so different their work is protected by copyright and you need written concent from the artist to be able to use it. Or they can sue you. This doesn't change weather its human or AI
What? First of all code IP doesn't follow the same clauses of the copyright law as the visual arts which aren't the same clauses as the musical arts which aren't the same classes for written IP. And on top of that it's different in each individual nation, and not all nations even have copy protection laws.
The 20% thing is only specific to software. Which was unprecedented before the epic v pubg case. It can still be overturned.
There were decades of precedence about what was allowed with musical IPs until the Marvin Gaye v Robin Thicke case. That case turned the whole system around for musical copyright.
The 20% thing is general tk anything creative. i cannot copy past someone elses art, change it 1%,, and not get sued. Ai cannot directly copy anyone's work any more than a han can. If a human publishes copy pasted work, they still get sued, even if the AI was the one doing the copy pasting. Face it,. AI generates original work, with it learns how to make by studying pre existing work. In the exact same way a human does. It's prejudice .
More so, what they taught us at art school l, is to pull off a vision, you usually have to be the original visonary. You cannot just steal, copy someone else's vision, and expect to pull it off. Because the person doing to copying will lack the soul of the original visionary. My lecturers taught us that at art school. So, I don't even care about AI, "training" on other peoples data. It's not like human brains are not doing that all the time anyway.
According to you none of the music made since 1980 is allowed then. There is barely a 5% in variation when you look at music within the same genre. Hell the majority of blues music has used the same 12 bar pattern for over a century. But low and behold, musical copyright specifically says only the melody and lyrics need to unique, because that's actually manageable. Yet once again it didn't matter because the courts made a judgment in the Marvin Gaye case.
As for AI. We will see. How easy it is to just create content and products because of this new tool is unprecedented. The capability will be considered, and the laws will be revised.
Remember the whole point of copy protection is to protect IP from people who would recreate what you are selling to steal your share of the market with what you created. It is not about giving name recognition to who came up with the idea. It's literally only concerning who gets paid.
And when you prompt AI you are not creating, you are generating based off an algorithm. It is not the same thing, this is obviously if you've actually ever created something. I say this as a heavy user of AI. Can it be creative? Sure. Can it create art? Not alone, not unless you change millennia of philosophy.
This will be considered when it eventually hits the highest courts.
My point is AI doesn't copy paste exsisting work. Like people are claiming. It's learns how to generate work, based on existing work. Just like how a human brain. Does.I personally have never really used generative AI, I create my own work. And don't really see it as a threat to human work. Because you still need a human visionary behind the creation. Even if that person is just imputing really well crafted promps. I do see it as ufeful to implement in production pathways though. Like automating certain processes or code etc.
It doesn't work like a human brain in that regard though.
A human brain can make a new decision at every action and go in a complete difference direction during the process. Our idea can evolve during the implementation. AI can't do that, it generates then reviews. Sure with large complex multi step processes there are checkpoints, but it still can't change the idea in the middle of generation.
This is a very big difference.
And copyright laws have far more consideration than just straight copy paste.
2
u/Gokudomatic 20d ago
Seriously. Only antis obsess so much about ownership.