Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • Throw a Foxtrot@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    92·
    9 months ago

    The rules aren’t any different for AI. AI is not a legal entity, just like a pen and canvas are not. It is always about the person who makes money with facsimiles of copyrighted previous work.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      9 months ago

      So then the people operating this AI and offering paid services are legally in the wrong and should be taken down or pay reparations to everyone they’ve stolen from.

      • vithigar@lemmy.caEnglish
        41·
        9 months ago

        Again, that makes as much sense as holding Staedtler responsible because someone used their pencils to duplicate a copyrighted work.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          If Staedtler sampled copywritten works to create pencils that automatically steal it without attribution on demand, then yes it would be exactly like that.

      • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        9 months ago

        So do you want to shutdown Google because I can type “spongebob squarepants” into Google images and Google with give me an image of spongebob?

        Please put some thought into the implications of what you’re saying outside of AI before you make a knee-jerk reaction like that.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          9 months ago

          Those images in the search results are one of three categories:

          1. Officially licensed and distributed works that Spongebob IP owners signed off on

          2. Fair use works, namely noncommercial and parody

          3. Illegal works the posters of which can be sued

          Google themselves didn’t create those images. Google didn’t intentionally profit off of illegal works without giving credit. Google didn’t post those images themselves. AI did all of those things.

          • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            9 months ago

            It doesn’t matter if Google creates the images.

            It doesn’t matter if they “intend” to profit from illegal works.

            It doesn’t matter if they “give credit” (this is the one that’s the dumbest because it just reeks of ignorance, like thinking you can use whatever works you like as long as you put a credit to them in the description)

            Google showing you copywritten images when you search for them is not different than when an AI does it.

            • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              9 months ago

              It does actually matter if Google creates the images and then sells them directly. That is what this discussion is about. If you don’t want to be a part of the discussion, fuck off then.

              • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                9 months ago

                Imagine getting this riled up over a stranger on lemmy thinking something different to you.

                Maybe put the phone down, take a deep breath and go for a walk outside for a moment.

                • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  9 months ago

                  I see you’ve abandoned your argument to express your mental image of somebody you’ve never seen or heard before. I accept your resignation, then, happy to help you see the light.

                  • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    9 months ago

                    Jesus christ this is the most redditor comment.

                    Okay buddy, I resign. So you can add another tally to your “Internet arguments won” board. I hope your mom makes extra tendies for you tonight in celebration.