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.
It’s not infringing, that’s like saying advertising is infringed by being copied.
If you show your images in public and thet get picked up by crawling spiders, you don’t have a case to curtail its spread.
We asked A.I. to create a copyrighted image from the Joker movie. It generated a copyrighted image as expected.
Ftfy
When they asked for an Italian video game character it returned something with unmistakable resemblance to Mario with other Nintendo property like Luigi, Toad etc. … so you don’t even have to ask for a “screencapture” directly for it to use things that are clearly based on copyrighted characters.
you’re still asking for a character from a video game, which implies copyrighted material. write the same thing in google and take a look at the images. you get what you ask for.
you can’t, obviously, use any image of Mario for anything outside fair use, no matter if AI generated or you got it from the internet.
But the AI didn’t credit the clear inspiration. That’s the problem, that is what makes it theft: you need permission to profit off of the works of others.
you need permission to profit off of the works of others.
but that’s exactly what I said. you can’t grab an image of Mario from google and profit from it as you can’t draw a fan art of Mario and profit from it as well as you can’t generate an image of Mario and profit from it.
It doesn’t matter if you’re generating it with software or painting it on canvas, if it contains intellectual property of others, you can’t (legally) use it for profit.
however, generating it and posting it as a meme on the internet falls under fair use, just like using original art and making a meme.
The users are allowed to ask for those things
The AI company should not be allowed to give it in return for monetary gain.
What it proves is that they are feeding entire movies into the training data. It is excellent evidence for when WB and Disney decides to sue the shit out of them.
Does it really have to be entire movies when theres a ton of promotional images and memes with similar images?
Yes. Thats what these things are, extremely large catalogues of data. As much data as possible is their goal.
True but it didn’t pick some random frame somewhere in the movie it chose a extremely memorable shot that is posted all over the place. I won’t deny that they are probably feeding it movies but this is not a sign of that.
This image is literally the top result on Google images for me.
Why would it pick some random frame in the middle of its data set instead of a frame it has the most to reference. It can still use all those other frames to then pick the frame if has the most references to.
But im starting to think maybe i misunderstood the comment i replied to.
Sorry, im way out of context with my reply, totally my fault for reflexively replying.
Uhhh would you accept i didnt have my coffee yet and hadnt got out of bed yet as an explanation?
Promotional images are still under copyright.
We should find all the memers and throw them in jail.
I have that exact same .jpeg stored on my computer and I don’t even know where it came from. I don’t even watch superhero films
And if you tried to sell that, you would be breaking the law.
Which is what these AI models are doing
They’re not selling it though, they’re selling a machine with which you could commit copyright infringement. Like my PC, my HDD, my VCR…
No, they are selling you time in a digital room with a machine, and all of the things it spits out at you.
You dont own the program generating these images. You are buying these images and the time to tinker with the AI interface.
I’m not buying anything, most AI is free as in free beer and open source e.g. Stable Diffusion, Mistral…
Unlike hardware it’s actually accessible to everyone with sufficient know-how.
Youre pretty young, huh. When something on the internet from a big company is free, youre the product.
Youre bug and stress testing their hardware, and giving them free advertising. While using the cheapest, lowest quality version that exists, and only for as long as they need the free QA.
The real AI, and the actual quality outputs, cost money. And once they are confident in their server stability, the scraps youre picking over will get a price tag too.
They literally asked it to give them a screenshot from the Joker movie. That was their fucking prompt. It’s not like they just said “draw Joker” and it spit out a screenshot from the movie, they had to work really hard to get that exact image.
Because this proves that the “AI”, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of its training set.
Likely because the “AI” was trained upon this image at some point. This has repercussions with regards to copyright law. It means the training set contains copyrighted data and the use of said training set could be argued as piracy.
Legal discussions on how to talk about generative-AI are only happening now, now that people can experiment with the technology. But its not like our laws have changed, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If the training data is obviously copyright infringement, then the data must be retrained in a more appropriate manner.
By that logic I am also storing that image in my dataset, because I know and remember this exact image. I can reproduce it from memory too.
… Do you think youre a robot?
What’s the difference? I could be just some code in the simulation
Edit: downvoted by people who unironically stan Ted Kaczynski
You ever try to do a public performance of a copyrighted work, like “Happy Birthday to You” ??
You get sued. Even if its from memory. Welcome to copyright law. There’s a reason why every restaraunt had to make up a new “Happy Happy Birthday, from the Birthday Crew” song.
Yeah, but until I perform it without a license for profit, I don’t get sued.
So it’s up to the user to make sure that if any material that is generated is copyright infringing, it should not be used.
Otakon anime music videos have no profits but they explicitly get a license from RIAA to play songs in public.
So? I’m not saying those are fair terms, I would also prefer if that were not the case, but AI isn’t performing in public any more having a guitar with you in public is ripping off Metallica.
You don’t need to perform “for profit” to get sued for copyright infringement.
but AI isn’t performing in public any more having a guitar with you in public is ripping off Metallica.
Is the Joker image in that article derivative or substantially similar to a copyrighted work? Is the query available to anyone who uses Midjourney? Are the training weights being copied from server-to-server behind the scenes? Were the training weights derived from copyrighted data?
I’ve had this discussion before, but that’s not how copyright exceptions work.
Right or wrong (it hasn’t been litigated yet), AI models are being claimed as fair use exceptions to the use of copyrighted material. Similar to other fair uses, the argument goes something like:
“The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use”
I think it’ll boil down to whether the models can be easily used as replacements to the works being claimed, and honestly I think that’ll fail. That the models are quite good at reconstructing common expressions of copyrighted work is novel to the case law, though, and worthy of investigation.
But as someone who thinks ownership of expressions is bullshit anyway, I tend to think copyright is not the right way to go about penalizing or preventing the harm caused by the technology.
“The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use”
So selling fan fiction and fan-made game continuations and modifications should be legal?
Not the OP, but yes it absolutely should. The idea you can legaly block someones creative expression because they are using elements of culture you have obtained a monopoly of is obscene.
Copyright law is the right tool, but the companies are chasing the wrong side of the equation.
Training should not and I suspect will not be found to be infringement. If old news articles from the NYT can teach a model language in ways that help it review medical literature to come up with novel approaches to cure cancer, there’s a whole host of features from public good to transformational use going on.
What they should be throwing resources at is policing usage not training. Make the case that OpenAI is liable for infringing generation. Ensure that there needs to be copyright checking on outputs. In many ways this feels like a repeat of IP criticisms around the time Google acquired YouTube which were solved with an IP tagging system.
There’s no money for them in that angle though. It’s much easier to sue xerox for enabling copyright violations than the person who used the machine to violate copyright.
Courts have already handled this with copy machines. AI isn’t terribly different, it’s unlikely these suits against model creators succeed.
There’s money (and more importantly, survival) if they can ensure liability of Xerox for infringement on the use of their centralized copiers.
There actually isn’t survival as a company even if they succeed on training but not the other, which I don’t think they realize yet.
As an aside, one of the worst legal takes I read on this was from a GC at the Copyright office during the 70s who extensively used poor analogies to copiers to justify an infringement argument.
Should Photoshop check your image for copyright infringement? Should Adobe be liable for copyright infringing or offensive images users of it’s program create?
If it’s contributing creatively to your work, yeah, totally.
If you ask Photoshop fill to add an italian plumber and you’ve been living under a rock for you life so you don’t realize it’s Mario, when you get sued by Nintendo for copyright infringement it’d be much better policy if it was Adobe on the hook for adding copyrighted material and not the end user.
A better analogy is: if you hired a graphic designer and they gave you copyrighted material, who is liable?
If it’s contributing creatively to your work, yeah, totally.
AI is not contributing creatively though, programs do not create.
If you ask Photoshop fill to add an italian plumber and you’ve been living under a rock for you life so you don’t realize it’s Mario, when you get sued by Nintendo for copyright infringement it’d be much better policy if it was Adobe on the hook for adding copyrighted material and not the end user.
I am speaking of Photoshop used as a non-AI tool as it has been used to commit copyright infringement for decades before Photoshop fill was a thing. Should it check if your image infringes on copyright?
A better analogy is: if you hired a graphic designer and they gave you copyrighted material, who is liable?
The graphic designer. If you went ahead and redistributed it you would also be liable. Whatever program he used or it’s developer wouldn’t be liable.
AI is not contributing creatively though, programs do not create.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on that Kool-aid, and it’s that disagreement which is core to the model provider being liable for introducing copyright infringement.
I mean anyone can use copyrighted material as inspiration for their work and it’s fair use and not a concern at all.
Is Ai only bad since it can do what a human does better/faster? If that’s that case, than they don’t actually have an issue with the fact it’s copyrighted, or I wouldn’t be able to use it for inspiration either.
Is Ai only bad since it can do what a human does better/faster?
Legally speaking, AI is not anything. Its just a computer program. What you’re asking is completely a red-herring.
The question here is if the training-weights constitute copyright infringement. Now look at any clip-art set. Most clip-art is so called “royalty free”, as in you can copy it from computer-to-computer without any copyright issues, because the author specifically said that its royalty free.
But if you have a copyrighted font, then even copying that font from one computer to another constitutes copyright infringement. (IE: Literally, you aren’t allowed to copy this unless you have the permission of the author).
So, when you download Midjourney’s training weights, does that act in of itself constitute a copy that violate’s the authors of “Joker” movie? As far as I can tell, yes. Because the training weights clearly contain Joker images.
Looking at a copyrighted font with your computer means the font is in your computer’s memory. Do I go to jail for every site I visit that uses a fancy font?
Font files ≠ framebuffer
Images ≠ neural network weights
Do I go to jail for every site I visit that uses a fancy font?
If its a fancy copyrighted font without a license to copy… the Website owner gets sued. Because the website owner is the one making mass copies of said font.
Do… you know what copyrites are? They relate to the copying of data.
The framebuffer on your computer copies the data to display the font to you. That’s my point. Not every form of copying infringes on copyright.
And my argument is that Midjourney’s servers are engaged in illegal copying. So I think your point is moot. Not the Web Browsers downloading images.
The movie Joker’s image is being copied each time the training weights are copied to a new server. Is that not an illegal copy?
If the training data is obviously copyright infringement, then the data must be retrained in a more appropriate manner.
This is the crux of the issue, it isn’t obviously copyright infringement. Currently copyright is completely silent on the matter one way or another.
The thing that makes this particularly interesting is that the traditional copyright maximalists, the ones responsible for ballooning copyright durations from its original reasonable limit of 14 years (plus one renewal) to its current absurd duration of 95 years, also stand to benefit greatly from generative works. Instead of the usual full court press we tend to see from the major corporations around anything copyright related we’re instead seeing them take a rather hands off approach.
This is the crux of the issue, it isn’t obviously copyright infringement. Currently copyright is completely silent on the matter one way or another.
Its clear that the training weights have the data on recreating this Joker scene. Its also clear that if the training-data didn’t contain this image, then the copy of the image would never result into the weights that have been copy/pasted everywhere.
Except it isn’t a perfect copy. It’s very similar, but not exact. Additionally for every example you can find where it spits out a nearly identical image you can also find one where it produces nothing like it. Even more complicated you can get images generated that very closely match other copyrighted works, but which the model was never trained on. Does that mean copying the model violates the copyright of a work that it literally couldn’t have included in its data?
You’re making a lot of assumptions and arguments that copyright covers things that it very much does not cover or at a minimum that it hasn’t (yet) been ruled to cover.
Legally, as things currently stand, an AI model trained on a copyrighted work is not a copy of that work as far as copyright is concerned. That’s today’s legal reality. That might change in the future, but that’s far from certain, and is a far more nuanced and complicated problem than you’re making it out to be.
Any legal decision that ruled an AI model is a copy of all the works used to train it would also likely have very far reaching and complicated ramifications. That’s why this needs to be argued out in court, but until then what midjourney is doing is perfectly legal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/derivative_work
Copyrights allow their owners to decide how their works can be used, including creating new derivative works off of the original product. Derivative works can be created with the permission of the copyright owner or from works in the public domain. In order to receive copyright protection, a derivative work must add a sufficient amount of change to the original work.
The law is very clear on the nature of derivative works of copyrighted material.
Not sure where they’re getting the bit about copyright disallowing derived works as that’s just not true. You can get permission to create a derived work, but you don’t need permission to create a derived work so long as the final result does not substantially consist of the original work.
Unfortunately what constitutes “substantially” is somewhat vague. Various rulings have been made around that point, but I believe a common figure used is 30%. By that metric any given image represents substantially less than 30% of any AI model so the model itself is a perfectly legal derived work with its own copyright separate from the various works that were combined to create it.
Ultimately though the issue here is that the wrong tool is being used, copyright just doesn’t cover this case, it’s just what people are most familiar with (not to mention most people are very poorly educated about it) so that’s what everyone reaches for by default.
With generative AI what we have is a tool that can be used to trivially produce works that are substantially similar to existing copyrighted works. In this regard it’s less like a photocopier, and more like Photoshop, but with the critical difference that no particular talent is necessary to create the reproduction. Because it’s so easy to use people keep focusing on trying to kill the tool rather than trying to police the people using it. But they’re going about it all wrong, copyright isn’t the right weapon if that’s your goal. Copyright can be used to go after the people using generative AI tools, but not the people creating the tools.
Because it’s so easy to use people keep focusing on trying to kill the tool rather than trying to police the people using it. But they’re going about it all wrong, copyright isn’t the right weapon if that’s your goal. Copyright can be used to go after the people using generative AI tools, but not the people creating the tools.
Why? If the training weights are created and distributed in violation of copyright laws, it seems appropriate to punish those illegal training weights.
In fact, all that people really are asking for, is for a new set of training weights to be developed but with appropriate copyright controls. IE: With express permission from the artists and/or entities who made the work.
So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.
Doesn’t this prove that a human, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of their memory?
So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.
Artists don’t have hard drives or solid state drives that accept training weights.
When you have a hard drive (or other object that easily creates copies), then the law that follows is copyright, with regards to the use and regulation of those copies. It doesn’t matter if you use a Xerox machine, VHS tape copies, or a Hard Drive. All that matters is that you’re easily copying data from one location to another.
And yes. When a human recreates a copy of a scene clearly inspired by copyrighted data, its copyright infringement btw. Even if you recreate it from memory. It doesn’t matter how I draw Pikachu, if everyone knows and recognizes it as Pikachu, I’m infringing upon Nintendo’s copyright (and probably their trademark as well).
But where is the infringement?
This NYT article includes the same several copyrighted images and they surely haven’t paid any license. It’s obviously fair use in both cases and NYT’s claim that “it might not be fair use” is just ridiculous.
Worse, the NYT also includes exact copies of the images, while the AI ones are just very close to the original. That’s like the difference between uploading a video of yourself playing a Taylor Swift cover and actually uploading one of Taylor Swift’s own music videos to YouTube.
Even worse the NYT intentionally distributed the copyrighted images, while Midjourney did so unintentionally and specifically states it’s a breach of their terms of service. Your account might be banned if you’re caught using these prompts.
But where is the infringement?
Do Training weights have the data? Are the servers copying said data on a mass scale, in a way that the original copyrighters don’t want or can’t control?
Data is not copyrighted, only the image is. Furthermore you can not copyright a number, even though you could use a sufficiently large number to completely represent a specific image. There’s also the fact that copyright does not protect possession of works, only distribution of them. If I obtained a copyrighted work no matter the means chosen to do so, I’ve committed no crime so long as I don’t duplicate that work. This gets into a legal grey area around computers and the fundamental way they work, but it was already kind of fuzzy if you really think about it anyway. Does viewing a copyrighted image violate copyright? The visual data of that image has been copied into your brain. You have the memory of that image. If you have the talent you could even reproduce that copyrighted work so clearly a copy of it exists in your brain.
only distribution of them.
Yeah. And the hard drives and networks that pass Midjourney’s network weights around?
That’s distribution. Did Midjourney obtain a license from the artists to allow large numbers of “Joker” copyrighted data to be copied on a ton of servers in their data-center so that Midjourney can run? They’re clearly letting the public use this data.
Because they’re not copying around images of Joker, they’re copying around a work derived from many many things including images of Joker. Copying a derived work does not violate the copyright of the work it was derived from. The wrinkle in this case is that you can extract something very similar to the original works back out of the derived work after the fact. It would be like if you could bake a cake, pass it around, and then down the line pull a whole egg back out of it. Maybe not the exact egg you started with, but one very similar to it. This is a situation completely unlike anything that’s come before it which is why it’s not actually covered by copyright. New laws will need to be drafted (or at a bare minimum legal judgements made) to decide how exactly this situation should be handled.
derived
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/derivative_work
Copyrights allow their owners to decide how their works can be used, including creating new derivative works off of the original product. Derivative works can be created with the permission of the copyright owner or from works in the public domain. In order to receive copyright protection, a derivative work must add a sufficient amount of change to the original work.
Are you just making shit up?
When they say “copyrighted by Warner bros” they actually mean “created by a costume designer, production designer, lighting designer, cinematographer, photographer or camera operator, makeup artist, hairdresser, and their respective crews who were contractually employed by Warner bros but get no claim to their work,” right?
deleted by creator
Well yeah, you don’t buy a car built by a list of every motherfucker in the factory, you buy a Toyota or a fucking ford.
God I fucking hate this braindesd AI boogeyman nonsense.
Yeah, no shit you ask the AI to create a picture of a specific actor from a specific movie, its going yo look like a still from that movie.
Or if you ask it to create “an animated sponge wearing pants” it’s going to give you spongebob.
You should think of these AIs as if you asking an artist freind of yours to draw a picture for you. So if you say “draw an Italian video games chsracter” then obviously they’re going to draw Mario.
And also I want to point out they interview some professor of English for some reason, but they never interview, say, a professor of computer science and AI, because they don’t want people that actually know what they’re talking about giving logical answers, they want random bloggers making dumb tests and “”“exposing”“” AI and how it steals everything!!!1!!! Because that’s what gets clicks.
All of this and also fuck copyright.
Why does everyone suddenly care about copyright so much. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
It’s actually pretty concerning. A lot of the anti-AI arguments are really short-sighted. People want to make styles copyrightable. Could you imagine if Disney was allowed to claim ownership over anything that even kinda looked like their work?
I feel like the protectionism of the artist community is a potential poison pill. That in the fight to protect themselves from corporations, they’re going to be motivated to expand copyright law, which ultimately gives more power to corporations.
If you copy work without giving credit to it’s source then you’re the asshole, the rules shouldn’t be any different for AI.
If you ask your friend to draw something with a vague prompt then I like to think you’ll get something original more often than not, which is what the article discusses in depth: the AI will return copyrighted characters almost every time.
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.
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.
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.
Those images in the search results are one of three categories:
-
Officially licensed and distributed works that Spongebob IP owners signed off on
-
Fair use works, namely noncommercial and parody
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Again, that makes as much sense as holding Staedtler responsible because someone used their pencils to duplicate a copyrighted work.
I’m so sick of these examples with zero proof. Just two pictures side by side and your word that one of them was created (easily, it’s implied) by AI. Cool. How? Explain to me how you did it, please.
New York Times and just making shit up, name a better combo.
“Generate this copyrighted character”
“Look, it showed us a copyrighted character!”
Does everyone that writes for the NYTimes have a learning disability?
The point is to prove that copyrighted material has been used as training data. As a reference.
If a human being gets asked to draw the joker, gets a still from the film, then copies it to the best of their ability. They can’t sell that image. Technically speaking they’ve broken the law already by making a copy. Lots of fan art is illegal, it’s just not worth going after (unless you’re Disney or Nintendo).
As a subscription service that’s what AI is doing. Selling the output.
Held to the same standards as a human artist, this is illegal.
If AI is allowed to copy art under copyright, there’s no reason a human shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing.
Proving the reference is all important.
If an AI or human only ever saw public domain artwork and was asked to draw the joker, they might come up with a similar character. But it would be their own creation. There are copyright cases that hinge on proving the reference material. (See Blurred Lines by Robin Thick)
The New York Times is proving that AI is referencing an image under copyright because it comes out precisely the same. There are no significant changes at all.
In fact even if you come up with a character with no references. If it’s identical to a pre-existing character the first creator gets to hold copyright on it.
This is undefendable.
Even if that AI is a black box we can’t see inside. That black box is definitely breaking the law. There’s just a different way of proving it when the black box is a brain and when the black box is an AI.
But that’s just a lie? You may draw from copyright material. Nobody can stop you from drawing anything. Thankfully.
Nobody can stop you.
But because our copyright laws are so overreaching you probably are breaching copyright.
It’s just not worth a company suing you for the financial “damages” they’ve “suffered” because you drew a character instead of buying a copy from them.
Certain exceptions exist, not least “De Minimus” and education.
You can argue that you’re learning to draw. Then put that drawing in a drawer and probably fine.
But’s pretty clear cut in law that putting it even on your own wall is a copyright breach if you could have bought it as a poster.
The world doesn’t work that way but suddenly AI doing what an individual does thousands of times, means thousands times the potential damage.
Just as if you loaded up a printing press.
De Minimus no longer applies and the actual laws will get tested in court.
Even though this isn’t like a press in that each image can be different, thousands of different images breaking copyright aren’t much different to printing thousands of the same image.
No that’s just not how the law is. Now it’s just two lies
Unfortunately I have studied this.
So we’ll just have to decide to agree to disagree and hope neither ends up on the wrong side of the law.
Like I say. Copyright is based upon damage to the copyright holder. It’s quite obvious when that happens and it’s hard to do enough as an individual to be worth suing.
But making a single copy without permission, without being covered by any exemptions, is copyright infringement.
Copy right. The right to copy.
You don’t have it unless you pay for it.
In my country we can draw anything and not get sued or break the law. I think that’s pretty good too. It’s when you sell stuff you get into those things.
Much like @Ross_audio, I have studied this intently for business reasons. They are absolutely right. This is not a transformative work. This is a direct copy of a trademarked and/or copyrighted character for the purpose of generating revenue. That’s simply not legal for the same reason that you can’t draw and sell your own Spider-Man comics about a teenager that gains the proportional strength and abilities of a spider, but you can sell your own Grasshopper-Man comics about a teenager that gains the proportional strength and abilities of a grasshopper. As long as you use your own designs and artwork. Because then it is transformative. And parody. Both are legal. What Midjourney is doing is neither transformative nor parody.
Yeah it would not be strange to me if that’s how it works in the states, but I think drawing something (not selling, the example was not monetary) does not have international reach
Midjourney Inc. is in San Francisco, so U.S. law is what applies here.
It’s not selling that image (or any image), any more than a VCR is selling you a taped version of Die Hard you got off cable TV.
It is a tool that can help you infringe copyright, but as it has non-infringing uses, it doesn’t matter.
Then who created this image in your view?
If someone copies a picture from a cartoon who created it?
The person who created the cartoon in the first place.
Try painting a Disney character on the wall of a waiting room.for children.
So the copyer didn’t create anything? Odd way to look at it to me.
The copier didn’t create any Intellectual property. They copied it.
Copy right. The right to copy.
It’s fairly fundamental.
What point do you think youre making? The answer to this question supports their point.
I wasn’t arguing with them lol just wondered their opinion.
It does feel weird to me that if someone draws a copy of something people don’t think they’ve created anything. That somehow the original artist created it.
That’s irrelevant, the issue is whether the machine is committing a crime, or the person
Machines aren’t culpable in law.
There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.
The debate is, which humans are culpable?
The programmers, trainers, or prompters?
The prompters. That is easy enough. If I cut butter with a knife it’s okay, if I cut a person with a knife - much less so. Knife makers can’t be held responsible for that, it’s just nonsense.
If you try to bread with an autonomous knife and the knife kills you by stabbing you in the head. Is it solely your fault?
VCR makers do not claim to create original programming.
Why does that matter?
Because they aren’t doing anything to violate copyright themselves. You might, but that’s different. AI art is created by the software. Supposedly it’s original art. This article shows it is not.
It is original art, even the images in question have differences, but it’s ultimately on the user to ensure they do not use copyrighted material commercially, same as with fanart.
If I draw a very close picture to a screenshot of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and try to pass it off as original art because there are a handful of differences, I don’t think most people would buy it.
Tough question is, can a tool be infringing anything?
Although I’d see a legal case if AI companies were to bill picture by picture, but now they are just billing for a tool subscription.
Still, would Microsoft be liable for my copy-pastes if they charged a penny every time I use it, or am I, if I sell a art piece that uses that infringing image?
AI could be scraping that picture from anywhere.
Who created this image in your view then, who is liable?
Can a tool create? It generated.
Anyway, in case like this, is creation even a factor in liability?
In my opinion one who gets monetary value first from the piece should be liable.
NYTimes?
“I didnt kill him, officer, my murder robot did. Oh, sure, I built it and programmed it to stab jenkins to death for an hour. Oh, yes, I charged it, set it up in his house, and made sure all the programming was set. Ah, but your honor, I didnt press the on switch! Jenkins did, after I put a note on it that said ‘not an illegal murderbot’ next to the power button. So really, the murderbot killed him, and if you like maybe even jenkins did it! But me? No, sir, Im innocent!”
How is this example relevant? You created the programming.
And someone created the AI programming too.
Then someone trained that AI.
It didn’t just come out of the aether, there’s a manual on how to do it.
So by that logic. I prompted you with a question. Did I create your comment?
I used you as a tool to generate language. If it was a Pulitzer winning response could I gain the plaudits and profit, or should you?
If it then turned out it was plagiarism by yourself, should I get the credit for that?
Am I liable for what you say when I have had no input into the generation of your personality and thoughts?
The creation of that image required building a machine learning model.
It required training a machine learning model.
It required prompting that machine learning model.
All 3 are required steps to produce that image and all part of its creation.
The part copyright holders will focus on is the training.
Human beings are held liable if they see and then copy an image for monetary gain.
An AI has done exactly this.
It could be argued that the most responsible and controlled element of the process. The most liable. Is the input of training data.
Either the AI model is allowed to absorb the world and create work and be held liable under the same rules as a human artist. The AI is liable.
Or the AI model is assigned no responsibility itself but should never have been given copyrighted work without a license to reproduce it.
Either way the owners have a large chunk of liability.
If I ask a human artist to produce a picture of Donald Duck, they legally can’t, even though they might just break the law Disney could take them to court and win.
The same would be true of any business.
The same is true of an AI as either its own entity, or the property of a business.
I’m not non-sentient construct that creates stuff.
…and when the copyright law was written there was no non-sentient things gererating stuff.
There is literally no way to prove whether you’re sentient.
Decart found that limitation.
The only definition in law is whether you have competency to be responsible. The law assumes you do as an adult unless it’s proven you don’t.
Given the limits of AI the court is going to assume it to be a machine. And a machine has operators, designers, and owners. Those are humans responsible for that machine.
It’s perfectly legitimate to sue a company for using a copyright breaking machine.
If a human being gets asked to draw the joker, gets a still from the film, then copies it to the best of their ability. They can’t sell that image. Technically speaking they’ve broken the law already by making a copy.
Is this really true? Breaking the law implies contravening some legislation which in the case of simply drawing a copyrighted character, you wouldn’t be in most jurisdictions. It’s a civil issue in that if some company has the rights to a character and some artist starts selling images of that character then whoever owns the rights might sue that artist for loss of income or unauthorised use of their intellectual property.
Regardless, all human artists have learned from images of characters which are the intellectual property of some company.
If I hired a human as an employee, and asked them to draw me a picture of the joker from some movie, there’s no contravention of any law I’m aware of, and the rights holder wouldn’t have much of a claim against me.
As a layperson, who hasn’t put much thought into this, the outcome of a claim against these image generators is unclear. IMO, it will come down to whether or not a model’s abilities are significantly derived from a specific category of works.
For example, if a model learned to draw super heros exclusively from watching marvel movies then that’s probably a copyright infringement. OTOH if it learned to draw super heroes from a wide variety of published works then IMO it’s much more difficult to make a case that the model is undermining the right’s holder’s revenue.
Copyright law is incredibly far reaching and only enforced up to a point. This is a bad thing overall.
When you actually learn what companies could do with copyright law, you realise what a mess it is.
In the UK for example you need permission from a composer to rearrange a piece of music for another ensemble. Without that permission it’s illegal to write the music down. Even just the melody as a single line.
In the US it’s standard practice to first write the arrangement and then ask the composer to licence it. Then you sell it and both collect and pay royalties.
If you want to arrange a piece of music in the UK by a composer with an American publisher, you essentially start by breaking the law.
This all gives massive power to corporations over individual artists. It becomes a legal fight the corporation can always win due to costs.
Corporations get the power of selective enforcement. Whenever they think they will get a profit.
AI is creating an image based on someone else’s property. The difference is it’s owned by a corporation.
It’s not legitimate to claim the creation is solely that of the one giving the instructions. Those instructions are not in themselves creating the work.
The act of creating this work includes building the model, training the model, maintaining the model, and giving it that instruction.
So everyone involved in that process is liable for the results to differing amounts.
Ultimately the most infringing part of the process is the input of the original image in the first place.
So we now get to see if a massive corporation or two can claim an AI can be trained on and output anything publicly available (not just public domain)without infringing copyright. An individual human can’t.
I suspect the work of training a model solely on public domain will be complete about the time all these cases get settled in a few years.
Then controls will be put on training data.
Then barriers to entry to AI will get higher.
Then corporations will be able to own intellectual property and AI models.
The other way this can go is AI being allowed to break copyright, which then leads to a precedent that breaks a lot of copyright and the corporations lose a lot of power and control.
The only reason we see this as a fight is because corporations are fighting each other.
If AI needs data and can’t simply take it publicly from published works, the value of licensing that data becomes a value boost for the copyright holder.
The New York Times has a lot to gain.
There are explicit exceptions limited to copyright law. Education being one. Academia and research another.
All hinge into infringement the moment it becomes commercial.
AI being educated and trained isn’t infringement until someone gains from published works or prevents the copyright holder from gaining from it.
This is why writers are at the forefront. Writing is the first area where AI can successfully undermine the need to read the New York Times directly. Reducing the income from the intellectual property it’s been trained on.
AI is creating an image based on someone else’s property. The difference is it’s owned by a corporation.
This isn’t the issue. The copyright infringement is the creation of the model using the copywrite work as training data.
All NYT is doing is demonstrating that the model must have been created using copywrite works, and hence infringement has taken place. They are not stating that the model is committing an infringement itself.
That’s called fair use. It’s a non-issue.
I think AI in this case is doing exactly what it’s best at: Automating unbelievably boring chores on the basis of past “experiences”. In this case the boring chore was “Draw me [insert character name] just how I know him/her”.
Too many people mistakenly assume generative AI is originative or imaginative. It’s not. It certainly can seem that way because it can transform human ideas and words into a picture that has ideally never before existed and that notion is very powerful. But we have to accept that, until now, human creativity is unique to us, the humans. As far as I can tell, the authors were not trying to prove generative AI is unimaginative, they were showing just how blatant copyright infringement in the context of generative AI is happening. No more, no less.
Creativity can be estimated by AI with randomness, but what they don’t have is taste to determine which of their random ideas are any good.
I dunno man … assume a model trained on the complete corpus of arts leading up to the Renaissance. What kind of randomness lands you at Hieronymus Bosch? Would AI be able to come up with Gonzo Journalism or modal music?
A brief glance at the history of human ingenuity in the arts really puts generative AI in perspective.
I see what you’re saying, but Bosch may not be the best example because frankly his paintings often look like the early AI fever dreams lol (I mean, not really, but you can see the resemblance). But seriously, with enough randomness you certainly could get that kind of output - there’s really no reason why not - but it would take god knows how many iterations and the computer doesn’t have everything other than the art to determine what is good.
It’s monkeys and typewriters, yknow. You’ll get there eventually even just producing random pixels (I mean, admittedly one limit will always be resolution unless you actually teach the AI to operate an arm which paints).
Copyright is a scam anyway so who cares?
Nah, that’s like saying capitalism is a scam.
Copyright and capitalism in general is fine. It’s when billion dollar corporations use political donations to control regulations
Like, imagine a year after Hangover came out. 20 production companies all released Hangover 2.
Imagine it was a movie by a small Indie studio so a big studio paid off the original actors to be in their knockoff.
Or an animated movie that used the same digital assets.
We need some copyright protection, just not a never ending system
Capitalism is a scam.
It’s an unsustainable system predicted on infinite growth that necessitates unconscionable inequality.
You dropped the “unregulated”.
Socialism is still capitalism. It’s just regulated and we use taxes to fund social programs.
And the second sentence is more caused by not taxing stock trades. If we had a tax that decreases the longer a stock is held, it would prioritize long term investment and companies would care about more than the next months earnings.
All shit that can be solved with common sense regulations.
I took a gun, pointed it at another person, pulled the trigger and it killed that person.
I opened the egg carton and found eggs in there.
I built the dam
I broke the dam
Damn.
I don’t know why everybody pretends we need to come up with a bunch of new laws to protect artists and copyright against “AI”. The problem isn’t AI. The problem is data scraping.
An example: Apple’s iOS allows you to record your own voice in order to make it a full speech synthesis, that you can use within the system. It’s currently tooted as an accessibility feature (like, if you have a disability preventing you from speaking out loud all of the time, you can use your phone to speak on your behalf, with your own custom voice). In this case, you provide the data, and the AI processes it on-device over night. Simple. We could also think about an artist making a database of their own works in order to try and come up with new ideas with quick prompts, in their own style.
However, right now, a lot of companies are building huge databases by scraping data from everywhere without consent from the artists that, most of the time, don’t even know their work was scraped. And they even dare to advise that publicly, pretend they have a right to do that, sell those services. That’s stealing of intellectual property, always has been, always will be. You don’t need new laws to get it right. You might need better courts in order to enforce it, depending on which country you live in.
There’s legal use of AI, and unlawful use of AI. If you use what belongs to you and use the computer as a generative tool to make more things out of it: AI good. If you take from others what don’t belong to you in order to generate stuff based on it: AI bad. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
This is a classic problem for machine learning systems, sometimes called over fitting or memorization. By analogy, it’s the difference between knowing how to do multiplication vs just memorizing the times tables. With enough training data and large enough storage AI can feign higher “intelligence”, and that is demonstrably what’s going on here. It’s a spectrum as well. In theory, nearly identical recall is undesirable, and there are known ways of shifting away from that end of the spectrum. Literal AI 101 content.
Edit: I don’t mean to say that machine learning as a technique has problems, I mean that implementations of machine learning can run into these problems. And no, I wouldn’t describe these as being intelligent any more than a chess algorithm is intelligent. They just have a much more broad problem space and the natural language processing leads us to anthropomorphize it.
No it is not. What is going on nobody calls intelligence. They train a model to draw this so that is what it does. Nothing here has anything to do with any problems with machine learning
they train a model
nothing here has anything to do with … machine learning
Pick one
Pick a quote by splicing words I said?
Ellipses are used in quotes to remove irrelevant parts without changing the meaning of the sentence. Makes it take less time to quote someone
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with basic concepts of the language we’re using here
It did change immensely what I said…
You typically wrap those ellipses in square brackets when making such a change. In fact, you do so with any editorial changes to a quote to make things more clear.
For example, if Mike was quoted about the war in Ukraine as saying “I just think this whole thing is silly, they should stop” you could alter the quote as such: Mike said “I just think […] [Russia] should stop.”
The fundamental philosophical question we need to answer here is whether Generative Art simply has the ability to infringe intellectual property, or if that ability makes Generative Art an infringement in and of itself.
I am personally in the former camp. AI models are just tools that have to be used correctly. There’s also no reason that you shouldn’t be allowed to generate existing IP with those models insofar as it isn’t done for commercial purposes, just as anyone with a drawing tablet and Adobe can draw unlicensed fan art of whatever they want.
I don’t really care if AI can draw a convincing Ironman. Wake me when someone uses AI in such a way that actually threatens Disney. It’s still the responsibility of any publisher or commercial entity not to brazenly use another company’s IP without permission, that the infringement was done with AI feel immaterial.
Also, the “memorization” issue seems like it would only be an issue for corporate IP that has the highest risk of overrepresentation in an image dataset, not independent artists who would actually see a real threat from an AI lifting their IP.
That’s basically my thought
“You used AI to get an image that infringes on copyright? Cool I’ve been able to do that with Google images for 20 years now”
If I ask an “ai” bot to create an image of batman, it does make sense to be modern or take inspiration from the batman of recent, the same applies to information it provides when asked questions. It makes sense to crawl news and websites with copyrighted footers if the information is relevant.
I do totally get their argument and think of the children angle. Getting to the point, it’s all about the money, nothing to do with protecting peoples work. They want a cut of the profits these companies will make.
In that case so should open licences demand that they do not make profit from such content. In that case I believe the free AI will be much more useful, if of course people be aggressive back with this tit for tat.
