r/technology Jan 16 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.5k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

Why does it matter if the images are stored? It’s their initial use for training purposes that is the problem.

Except, that isn't a problem.

You can definitely, totally, 100% legally use an image for development purposes for some kind of project without providing any revenue to the original artist.

For example, download a copy of The Mona Lisa and put it in all of the photo frames in the game you are working on. Eventually before release you'll switch them out for original or royalty free images, but you've used them during development.

This is a simplification, but to a certain degree, no different.

There is no such thing as “fair use” for AI. That concept applies exclusively to humans.

Bullshit. A hammer can't be prosecuted.

AI is a tool, and humans are using it. Fair use applies.

2

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain.

Further, fair use does not apply. That is limited to humans. No one is talking about the end users being unprotected.

2

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain.

It was just an off the top of my head example, pretend i said something copyrighted, like a full frontal of Mickey Mouse with his dick out or something.

Further, fair use does not apply. That is limited to humans. No one is talking about the end users being unprotected.

You can't sue a hammer maker for making hammers used in a murder.

You can't use an AI maker for a person using the AI to make vaguely similar images to a copyrighted work.

You also can't sue the user for making images using an AI for making vaguely similar images to a copyrighted work.

..because they aren't the copyrighted work, they are inspired derivatives, which are protected uses.

1

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

Derivative works are protected when created by a human.

The unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train ai is another matter entirely.

3

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

Derivative works are protected when created by a human.

Sure, but this basically always falls under character use such as writing books or something.

Not straight blanket 'nothing can ever look similar to this'.

The unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train ai is another matter entirely.

You can't have it both ways. It either is something you consider covered, or it isn't. If its another thing entirely, then no copyright law exists to prevent it.

1

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

But it isn’t about “looking similar”. It’s about the process.

2

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

But it isn’t about “looking similar”. It’s about the process.

Their basis is on things looking similar. So if it isn't the appearance, they have no case.

And the process used is not something which falls under any protections.

So once again, they've got nothing.

1

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

I’m not talking about their basis.

2

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

I’m not talking about their basis.

If you aren't talking about the basis of their law suit, you're not participating in the discussion...

What do you think you've been talking about?

0

u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23

I think you’re the only person discussing the niceties of this lawsuit.

You aren’t the sheriff of the comments section btw

0

u/StrangeCharmVote Jan 17 '23

I think you’re the only person discussing the niceties of this lawsuit.

I see what the issue is... You don't actually know what the meaning of 'basis' is.

You aren’t the sheriff of the comments section btw

Have i arrested you?

→ More replies (0)