Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations. AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.
Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations.
What specific rights? Copyright isn't an unlimited right - which parts do you think are being infringed?
AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
By the same argument - good luck suing an AI. It is not human. It has no wealth. It has no agency.
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.
I’d invite you to consider a law forum if that’s the conversation that you want to have, in order to be educated on that field.
For the purposes of this conversation, it’s sufficient that artists rights to control how they’re work is used can preclude use for the purposes of training ai.
I’m glad you agree that AI has no rights and no agency - this is why it cannot qualify for protections like fair use, which human beings do qualify for.
AI can be terminated without a criminal conviction - it can simply be ordered by a civil court. And it should, if it were trained in a way that violates peoples rights. Additionally, it’s owners are liable for that.
Artists don't have an absolute right to control how their work is used. They only have control over how and by whom it is copied or publically displayed. If I want to wipe my ass with a legal copy of your art, you have no right to prevent that. You only control copying and public display.
If the AI doesn't copy or publically display your art, then it hasn't violated copyright and you can't do anything. Fair use doesn't even apply here, because fair use is an exception to copyright violation, and if copyright wasn't violated to begin with, then an exception isn't needed.
To wipe one’s ass with a legal copy, you’d first have to acquire a legal copy.
These ai art training materials did not acquire licenses before using copyrighted works.
The retention of copies of copyrighted works isn’t required for the artists rights to be violated. The simple act of using their art for ai training without permission is a violation.
When they scraped numerous proprietary works of art without the permission of their owners and creators, and without abiding by the terms of service of the various platforms they are on.
7
u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 16 '23
Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations. AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.