Tap to unmute
A.I. Versus The Law
- Published on Jan 25, 2023 veröffentlicht
- Watch my next video on Dumb Robot Lawyers a week EARLY on Nebula! legaleagle.link/RobotLawyerBad
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
Send me an email: email@example.com
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Please email my agent & manager at firstname.lastname@example.org
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Comments • 5 720
🤖 Who do you think will win the AI wars?
⭐ Get 20% OFF Nebula with your favorite creators! legaleagle.link/nebula
In order to read my comment (aka IP) does your device not download and display it?
Wonder, if there's already AI generate to counter and detect these ideas, now? Lol.
Just say it, "It depends!" That's basically, what human laws comes down to. Lol.
I just can't wait when the day, AI gets lawyer up in court. When the day AI gets rights and protections, will human lives be change, for better or worse? Since, we human keep wanting more AI to be more human, though. Lol.
It's hilarious that "only people can own a copyright"... but also corporations, because we're always willing to treat them like people when it benefits them and their shareholders.
If you own a work you can transfer the rights to a corporation. Many do. It's awesome.
Corporations > Organic Meatbags.
I get where you are trying to come from, but corporations are essentially parties consisting of people and property/capital. The latter of which cannot hold copyright. The former can.
@Michael P Yeah that makes sense.
@KopiCAT "They" in this sense was an indefinite pronoun referring to the corporation which committed the corporate crime. I was not advocating that individuals within the corporation be held liable (though that would also be nice). I mean the legal "person" that is the corporation. Instead of a slap-on-the-wrist fine that corporations see as a simple cost of doing business, corporations found liable for something should face real punitive damages, something stiff enough to make shareholders take notice and force corrective action.
@Michael P You say "I'll believe corporations are people when they serve time for corporate crimes." OK, but who are "they"? Everyone? The owner? CEO? Shareholders? Majority and/or minority shareholders? Regular employees? Who made the decision that led to the disaster? And on what evidence did he/she base that decision on?
Problem with holder corporation accountable is that there are a hodgepodge of people involved some way or another. And it's easy to circle the wagon and muddy the waters enough that it's practically impossible to point to specific persons actually at fault.
As an artist, thank you for covering the legal aspect of this messy issue. There are so many perspectives to it (ethical, legal, personal, economical), and it’s not a simple matter. The best thing we can do is educate ourselves and come to a consensus/ learn about what protections we have.
AI is isolated work a program to copy style, image and by all means your work is being used that should not, be unless it only takes the best in that style and form. hearing and understanding its has so much data behind it making great art must mean its not use even 90% after people help it understand what they like.
@Jeff Koenig its wild how many ppl condemn a technology that they dont even understand. if you think ai art is a "collage machine" u dont know ur talking about. and that group includes a lot of the art community.
The problem with that is one must learn the mathematics needed to understand the machine learning process. Most people have no interest in learning the math and computer skills to understand how machine learning works. Therefore there will be no consensus unless you trust the computer scientists and mathematicians. In this day and age - good luck on that.
@ Jeff Koenig
@Therese N let me ask you something simple:
if I look at your art as a reference to learn how to draw (whatever it is your style and subject matter pertains to), are you going to sue me?
Are you upset or flattered?
Have I really impacted your ability to create or your reputation as an artist in any way?
And finally, why does it or would it matter if the artist learning from your work is human?
In fact, it enhances their reputation and makes their work more notable and valuable.
Also, the AI algorithm is doing EXACTLY what artists do.
I wonder if those complaining about AI art, without influence from other artists living and passed, simply had their own style. I doubt it.
@GaidenDS10 You sound drunk. Go back to sleep, please - for all of our sakes.
I love it when the A.I. generates an image with two recognizable watermarks from different artists.
In my opinion in this situation the copyright dispute must be handled with gladiatorial combat.
@Mathematical Poetry I know. And it doesn't mean either that the system did anything that might be directly related to the artist. It's just a repeated pattern that the model has picked up as part of things it thinks belongs in a picture.
Still find it funny tho when an image gets two or even three signatures on them.
I do understand the frustration of the artists tho, must not be fun seeing the A.I. plastering a bastardized version of their signature unto generated artworks.
Those watermarks are created in the “style” of the author they are not exact watermarks.
@Sentient Gun so.
i once saw a guy remove, then throw his hard drive ~15ft into the air about 20x times before recycling his computer.
BUT: do the drives have 12v and cases removed? Because in that case - they win 10/10.
@thetruerift Hard drive stomps 8 out of 10
The lawyer bot would be super easy to build. It just needs to reply to every question with "it depends"
@Filip Hájekah but they are not a AI can’t be as charming as a lawyer justice the courts ect need humans because we can relate to each other
*Attorney Man:* "Was your client at the scene of the crime at or around the time it occurred?"
*Lawyerbot:* "It depends."
*Attorney Man:* _".........What?"_
My thoughts on this is simple, if the AI is trained using art from human artists then those who are training the AI should arrange a licensing agreement with the original artists since their work is being used to make the AI profitable
That's just how licensing works, you can't pay the fee you can't use it, that's the whole point of it.
@Pixel Puppy that's for the most part how licensing works, when dbd first started they were too small to get the rights to people like myers and such, doesn't mean they get a reduced price, they waited till their game had a large enough audience that the rights holders saw that there was profit to be made.
@Azaril there are "little artists and developers" who would want to train an AI to do specific things too. They wouldn't be able to afford to pay the licensing fees, while bigger media companies like Disney would. That means the little guys will be locked out of doing this.
@Jose Humdinger comparing apples to oranges. Ai isn't a music class, your comparison isn't very apt. The music theory class, isn't taking his work, studying it and then pooping out something else based on his works. It's just music theory
If a music theory class studies Tom Petty's music, should they need Tom Petty's permission?
Wait... Devin is NOT an AI lawyer? All this time I thought he was a lawyer created with improved Max Headroom technology.
He (Devin) is a human but the editor(s)..I have never seen this person so maybe they actually are an AI?
There's a Star Trek Voyager episode called "Author, Author" dedicated to this topic, and it involves a trial setting! Since you had fun going over "Measure of a Man", it might be worth exploring for a future episode.
@Jeff Redfern Hardly for that. I will admit that killing nearly everyone in the Alpha quadrant under the age of 25 probably qualifies her, though. Even Chakotay and Harry only killed those under 15, plus random people who would have lived in the original timeline but died in the new one.
I just can't wait when the day, AI gets lawyer up in court. When the day AI gets rights and protections, will human lives be change, for better or worse? Since, we human keep wanting more AI to be more human, though. Lol.
Haven't seen the episode but I'd love to see the breakdown
Star Trek was a slightly different issue. Their AI was a truly self-aware individual. Our current AI is more like a rudimentary version of the ship's computer. But Data was on a whole different level
If we're talking Star Trek courtrooms, Dax might be interesting. Nothing to do with AI, though, lol
What a great overview
i like it
the point you brought up about fair use, that in addition to being "transformative" it must be "for a separate use" is I think a big issue with the ai artwork: as I said in my comment about the comparison to the two google cases, these ai art generators are trained on work produced by other artists in order to be able to create works that compete with those artists. I rather doubt anyone would consider that to be a separate use
@Matirion Mikey mouse is not an idea , is a product. Disney won't let you make your own Mikeys and sell them If it would take them off the market. An artist in the Netherlands painting Mikey mouses on shopfronts for a living isn't hurting Disney's pockets. Do you think it would be allowed if it did ? If you take the artists job when you use the ai instead of him to replicate his work, it replaces the artist using their work as a base. If the artists did not have his work on the internet, the ai wouldn't be able to make "van Gogh styled paintings" unless it would be used by an artist that already knows how to reproduce it even without ai. It is pretty obvious that if the ai was be able to reproduce Disney films right now and take their place in the industry the lawsuit would have already ended. But it is not yet. It is in a much smaller scale. Do you think Beyonce will let you use her ai voice for profit for free if it will take her out of the music industry or worsen her profits? (Taken as a given she wants to be in the music, as an example)
@MCAstream The mickey mouse example was an actual copy. Most of the cases are not going to be an actual copy. That's the thing.
An idea is not copyrightable. There are MANY intentional mickey mouse ripoffs, which have been upheld as being a unique expression of the same idea. If enough differences exist, even if it can be recognized as clearly based on Mickey, it does not infringe on Mickeys copyright. Warners Foxy character is a good example of this. They literally changed the species and that was enough to make it perfectly fine.
Didn't the video prove this with the Mikey mouse example? So If the ai does the same then it should be the same case. If you use the painting as reference but the final results doesn't look like the original then ok but if it does then yes. It is literally the idea of copying something.
You can't sell Mikey mouse plushies with one yellow ear and called it authentic(even though Mikey is a cartoon and doesn't have the same use as the original because Disney has the copyright for him)
@MCAstream It does not matter if the art is used as a reference, using it as a reference is not copying. And it's incoherent because half of what you say is not proper English, so it's hard to follow what you are even trying to say. Not to mention you have misunderstandings of what copyright even is.
Like I said, look up the basics. Like what copyright is, and what it covers. Using an artists work as reference in order to create something new doesn't infringe on the artists copyright, because the style is not protected by copyright. Copying a SPECIFIC work is what infringes on copyright.
Your attempt at an example could not be copyright infringement because it does not matter if the artists work is used in that manner. It would only matter if the goal was to reproduce a specific piece of work.
It's all happening so fast... Makes me envy everyone I know older than me who lived the majority of their lives before internet when there was just payphones, newspapers and pagers. So much freedom and less stress.
People in ancient Rome has been saying similar things. Look up the quote from 2000 years before complaing at kids behaviour. Every generation have similar feelings
That's not really rational though. You'd just be a slave to the same systems but lack the knowledge to see it.
yeah, but look how THEY turned out.
Seeing ai art being rejected for copyright protection gave me hope for humanity.
@mister liligant You're not 'a photographer' because you took a photograph of yourself in your ill-fitting underwear in front of your grubby bathroom mirror, but you still own the copyright as 'the photographer' in respect of that photograph.
Using AI tools to manifest a specific artistic vision requires both the vision, and the technical competency to effectively use the tool. It may be helpful to conceive of the use of prompts for AI as a higher level form of natural language programming. It should be uncontroversial that a collection of such prompts can form a copyrightable literary work, or that the picture those prompts produce can itself be copyrightable..
@Kafke are those copyrighted, or were they just in a museum? Not the same thing.
@HA BAO NGAN VU The human has the idea but the program does the creating, ideas are cheap and easy to reproduce but creating is another. Therefore the "artist" in this instance is the program because of the following.
You're not a grandmaster of chess because you let stockfish 15 recommend you the best possible moves for you; therefore your not deserving of such a title.
You're not a chef because you bought pre-packed frozen food and and the recommended vegetables.
Well, even if the person make the prompt, who is the artist then, the robot, them is robot human?
@Zere Not at all.
I really think a consensual opt-in model would be ideal. As an artist, most people are only really against having their work used for tech like this in a way that they were unaware of and did not give a “yes” to
@Дмитро Прищепа Then the companies that propose to use and profit from the work of others have two options - they must do what you (I think entirely wrongly) call 'impossible' and pay people for the use of their work, or they must stop using other people's work.
When you say it is impossible to do sensibly, you just mean that it would be difficult, time consuming and expensive. But since these businesses make money from using the work of others (if not from the sale of the derivative work, then from fees for access to the software or from advertising attached to the software), they should have the motivation and the requisite resources to figure it out.
The alternative (the do-nothing solution that you would excuse as inevitable) is essentially the following: let businesses profit from the works of others without paying them. That is entirely unacceptable.
@Thomas Gray a truly ethical AI companies should open source everything. This way every people have the same level of access. Open sourcing have won in the past even when fighting government restrictions such as encryption. Fully open sourced AI will make it resistant to any legal attacks since it will be almost impossible to enforce.
@Johnathan Era If you're the drummer in a band, and an album you helped create gets played on the radio, you're entitled to royalties. If you feed your art into an AI and that AI gets used to generate new art, you should get paid too because your art is an integral part of everything that AI creates.
@Thomas Gray this makes no sense lol. the AI took the art as inspiration. Same as every other artists. Users of an AI generator tool shouldnt have to pay anything more than an artist who takes inspiration from van Gogh does, that is to say, nothing.
*"Computers are not people."* As a software engineer, I've had to emphasize this point so many times when discussing this issue. It shouldn't take a lawyer and an engineer with a Master's degree in computer science to point this out, but here we are.
@TresTrefusis If could create genuine sentient AI then that would raise so many ethical issues that copyright would be the least of our problems.
Thank you for saying that!
@Winnie the Pooh Xi yea agreed, there is definitely a huge bias that many people have to think that they (or rather humans) are somehow unique and special among everything else when we're really not.
Most people havent actually put much thought into what humans actually are or how our bodies and brains actually function. So there is a HUGE bias towards human exceptionalism. People tend to have an existential crisis when they realize that humans really arent all that special and there isnt any particular reason to assume that we are. We're still just normal animals, just with slightly more complex brains to allow for things like language and societies.
But im sure people will start to realize this stuff over the next generation as people grow up with AI. Those preconceptions will disappear when there are more direct examples that show that humans arent the only ones capable of creative thought or ideas and stuff.
"Computers are not people." ....yet
I watch a few authors stream on Clip-Share and they have expressed concerns about AI art. Specifically some of the places that have copies of their work have now modified their EUL agreements to say that their work can be fed into AI Art generators without additional consent. Kind of like, here's your notice that we are going to do it. And that was after one of them had her art stolen by a company that started churning out stuff like shirts. It took her forever to claw back her rights to that work.
Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁
Just let artists opt in, the entire issue is solved. OR, just let artists opt out of having their names be used in the prompt, so that way random nobodies are unable to steal their style. Just, something to protect artists and enable the system to stay online.
that's not the issue - because there will always be bad players who don't care about opt-in/opt-out. So sue them, right? would they win? well then we're back to square one, which is what this video is about.
Jake at Corridor Crew also examined the copy right issues. He also agreed that it came down to derivative works versus transformative work. He also said, "It depends."
@IsYitzach It’s really not as clear cut as that. I could make a hyper-realistic digitally painted recreation of that same Afghan woman portrait and it would be a transformative work.
@IsYitzach Afghan woman was in the training data hundreds of times, it's mostly a case of bad data and extra weighting towards that result.
@Marko Petejan I have a different opinion on the matter of weightings. I think it was Hank Green that asked one of the AI machines for "an Afghan woman" and ended up with the cover a national geographic except her eyes were green instead of brown. Clearly, in that case, almost all of the pixels came from that one image and would almost certainly be derivative and not transformative. Images can't be equal weight to all training data or all outputs would be the same. So weights to each image in the training data for each output will clearly be different and such information is unlikely to preserved in the AI unless some characteristic such as the Getty watermark were to be reproduced or an image were to be used almost in its entirety, see my previous example.
I would go on to say that AI work is neither derivative, nor transformative. It is not intelligent and it is not stupid. Those are words we can use for ourselves, because this is how we "work", not how AI works. Makes sense?
Anyway, my information is that the dataset was 240 000 GB in size, while the AI network that is producing art is 5 GB in size. Even in the case that anything was stolen from original images (this is not how it works, btw), that would equate to 0.002% of original pixels being taken from each original image. Since the images processed by the network were all 512x512 pixels in size, this would mean that about 5 pixels were "unlawfully taken" from each image. So, we are talking at most if 5 pixels taken from a work of art is derivative or transformative. I would say neither again.
It's really gonna have to be on a case by case basis against other artists who might be trying to profit from work that infringes the copyright of another.
It would be like suing Adobe bc I can copy/paste an image and make minimal edits and then try to sell that image w/out permission of the owner.
I am glad you went super in depth about this subject. I agree with the court system that currently the ai does not pertain enough human element to warrant a human copyrighted ownership. I feel the best way right now to make both artists and ai users happy in creating works would be to develop a dataset that is consensual in its production. Not only does that open the doors for ai to have ownership, as the dataset is a unique and human collective created and altered by machine similarly to many works of art done through photoshop, it also does not steal from passionate creators to potentially try and replace them. The entry level comparison of, "AI works and develops things the same way humans do" is a misconstrued analogy rather than a definitive truth. Normally I do not comment, but this conversation is super engaging to me as someone who loves art but also loves computer science.
As a photographer that has sold the usage right of my photographs to magazines and different client mediums I foresee the problem that is going to happen when these new "A.I. Artists" start to sell the production rights to their artwork to someone or some corporation without disclosing the the work was indeed produced by and AI program. At some point someone else sees the artwork online and takes it, (since AI work is technically free usage) and uses it somewhere else which will most certainly incur a lawsuit from the entity that paid for the original production rights. I think a lot of these new AI artists are going to have some very expensive lessons...
@Matt you would also need proof you created it without using a.i
You'd need a proof it was ai made first
I really think that many AI legal issues will have to be solved through the passage of new laws rather than interpretation of existing laws. The laws we have were simply not made with AI in mind.
I disagree. The common law is very capable of dealing with novelty. The relatively recent excessive reliance on statute, especially but not only in America, obscures this.
@56redgreen It doesn't encode the images. It looks for patterns and similarities when it looks at an image and establishes rules based on that, which human artists do too when learning. It doesn't even use the actual images at all in the production process as a result.
Let's say you ask a random artist, "can you make me a drawing in this style?" And you then show them hundreds of examples of that style made by the original artist, they will be trying to figure out what makes that style the way it is. That's the extent to which most of the AI stuff uses the copyrighted works too.
A lot of the court cases die on that obstacle, because they couldn't point out the difference between a human learning the style and AI learning the style. Similarly, the creation of new work in a style doesn't use the original art either, but in the case of the stable diffusion AI, uses static and distorts it over and over to get closer to something that matches the rules it learned. At no point is the learning art actually used except for determining the rules the style follows. There are AI that actually make collages, but I suspect that the current lawsuit against stable diffusion is doomed to fail because it simply doesn't actually use the art like they claim it does.
@Stephanie this is like you setting the forest on fire and then suing the fire brigade for trespassing...
sure you created art, that doesn't put you in the same category as human created art we have created over the years. those all had a HAND in it's creation and effort behind it.
Abolish copyright law
This is the best video I've seen on this issue. Most treatment has been so reflexive and with no regard to how most people actually use AI. These tools are not going anywhere. Best to adapt and fast. It's tragic this is becoming a culture war. Those with the most to lose are focused on all the wrong things.
Thank you! Thank you so much for addressing this topic! I've been talking about this with a few artist friends of mine for a while now. One even had their work "volunteered" to an AI learning base via a updated terms of us on a art share website.
I have always said it, Ai Generator are a fascinating tool, however the reason so many artists are mad about it, isn’t the fact that it exists, but rather how it’s being utilized, Ai Generator has been taking so much images without the consent of the artists who made it, that it wouldn’t be a surprise if some of those images came from Patreon, not to mention my biggest concern that I don’t think the developers of Ai Generator realize, they just gave a new tool for scammers to further there endeavours to lie, cheater, and steal for the sake of profit, and not to quote Jurassic Park (this is pure coincidence I wasn’t expecting legal Eagle to mention it), but it does fit with this topic (-_-;
“They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
This is such a complex and interesting topic! I really hope there are laws created to protect artists and other creatives from AI generated art/content. I also wonder if digital artists are going to return to using more traditional mediums (acrylics, oils, colored pencils, etc) to create artwork and limit what they post online. Because I've seen artists post only a small part of a painting on social media, probably to prevent art theft.
Do keep in mind that the original purpose of copyright (and patent, and "intellectual property" protections in general) in modern conceptions of copyright (e.g., the U.S. constitution) is not protection of the artist: it's to encourage the production of original ideas _for the benefit of society._
Copyright owners, of course, have attempted to use this to extract more rent than necessary for this encouragement. A classic example is Disney's (successful) campaigning to have the copyright massively lengthened so as to let them continue to extract rent from Mickey Mouse. This clearly goes against the intent behind copyright law in the U.S., since Disney, by creating Mickey Mouse in the first place, showed that such long copyright periods were _not_ necessary to encourage that creation.
In fact, at this point where the protections have gone far beyond what's necessary just to encourage creation of new works we are actively suppressing creation: works take longer and longer to come out of copyright and become part of our "creative commons" and are thus not available for artists to re-use in their own new works. Imagine if Shakespeare's plays were still under copyright and owned by Disney; that would be a huge drag on artistry and creativity, without protecting anything except corporate profits.
I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with giving creators short-term monopolies on production of intangible things that otherwise have virtually no cost to reproduce, and letting them extract rent from that, _if_ there's a benefit to society (including other creators!) from this. Giving artists a way to make a living from their art so that they can create that art that benefits us all is a fine idea. But taken too far, or even just done in the wrong way, it turns into something that harms all of us, _including other artists,_ in order to benefit corporations and their shareholders.
@UBI Guy People that made a dataset&creators of SD and such? Got it!
AI can't commit art theft. Only people can.
Let’s talk 👆👆
I have something for you 🎁🎁❤️
1:48 - Thank you for the "not yet." Even a lot of AI law experts don't seem ready to acknowledge that this is a future case that we should at least be prepared for mentally if not yet putting a lot of work into getting ready for it.
The laws are gonna need to be clarified and redefined because this is gonna get very complicated very soon.
It's gonna be one helluva ride once it comes out in earnest thats for sure, buckle up
@Sugmatron What if something was PARTIALLY created by AI? Hollywood artist are using to create part of their line work. At what point is transformative enough? At what points there's "enough human creativity"? We need legal guidelines and standards.
@Emish Vortexus the human has intent. the computer does not. just because a handoff is happening doesn't mean the infringement didn't take place..
'AI art isn't just images the AI is throwing out independently of human interaction' - yes it is.. this is actually what the diffusion process is.. there is a layer on top of this in the programming model that tries to randomize, add flair, etc. to make it feel like it is 'creating'
@Emish Vortexus this is a wild and dangerous statement. you are implying some sort of magical sentience to ai art generators. you can look into the diffusion process and how machine learning works to understand how different they are
humans looking at copyright works and then creating a transformative work from inspiration and a culmination of life experience is vastly different from a computer diffusing a set of copyrighted images into one
You cant copyright or stop AI from doing what it does
Great analysis! The idea that a style can be copyrighted is obviously silly but it's worrying how many anti-AI arguments come close to defending that.
Ultimately I think the fact that so many people have such a negative reaction towards AI art shows that it will never fully replace artists. The human element is too important in too many situations. It's essentially just a highly advanced character creator.
Humans are involved in every AI art piece. You're mistaken. A photograph takes less human effort than an ai art piece.
The main thing I learned from this video is that there will definitely be AI lawyers in the future.
This isn't about AI, but part of something you mentioned still reminds me of this old case I was reading about with a video game. The character creator in some superhero game was very detailed and let people create their characters that looked just like, well whatever they wanted?
I looked it up, the info on Wikipedia: "In November, 2004, Marvel Comics filed a lawsuit against City of Heroes developer Cryptic Studios, publisher NCsoft, and game administrator NC Interactive (NCI), alleging that the game not only allowed, but actively promoted, the creation of characters who infringe copyrights and trademarks owned by Marvel."
The information from that shows that they definitely didn't actively promote it. They actually went around changing any characters they saw that looked too much like a copyrighted character. But that had to do with people just having the tools to make what they wanted and some people made their characters look like copyrighted Marvel stuff.
I talked to a couple people at Cryptic, apparently Marvel themselves created some accounts and then created a bunch of "infringing" characters themselves and submitted them as evidence that Cryptic wasn't doing enough to keep infringing player characters out of the game. Cryptic looked into the characters, traced the accounts back to Marvel and/or the legal team, and the judge got _super pissed_ at the plaintiff for such shenanigans.
@Starrider Yes, "superhero" itself is an archetype, completely incapable of copyright protection. However, the issue isn't the archetype but the fact the tool was so versatile you could straight up make specific existing superheroes. That's what created the issue and that's why Marvel was required to take SOME action. (Though in retrospect I am shocked neither DC nor Dark Horse stepped in either? Maybe because Marvel was already litigating, so why waste your own money on something someone else is already solving for you?) And the issue is that since it's an MMO, someone could quite literally create Iron Man's design, name him Tony Stark, and then in the public chat start spreading white supremacy. Whether for better or for worse, the major companies would have needed to step in to protect the brands. It's not just an issue of making a design that looks similar... it's the power to make the character itself that they had an issue with.
@Flannery's NoteBook thank you for an interesting example! I think actually the problem here is that in our mind superheroes are a trope like "a knight", or "a witch". It comes with certain visual associations. Yet the difference is that the later were formed through centuries and there is no CR-owner of the look. Superman appeared less than a 100 years ago, others are even younger. So what we associate with "superheroes" is owned by DC, Marvel etc. They copy each other all the time and they had a lot of drama and lawsuits because of it. And I'm sure Homelander of The Boys had to figure this stuff out as well.
A game that cuts these tropes into separate pieces had a great idea. But since people tend to experiment with the narrative they could build something too similar that wouldn't fit the representation of the character. It's hard to not see a strong flying white guy in a blue onesy and a red cape not as Superman.
And it is potentially competing with Marvel for the same (games) market, so this is why they probably couldn't stay.
@Known as because you only keep IP rights if you adequately protect them. Especially Trademarks. Also, fan content can harm the company's reputation at times. Imagine if someone made your character in a game and just started dropping the N-word left and right. Sure, it's not an official representation but the human mind can't understand that. It would just know, "Spider-man kept using the N-Word," and would develop that association because contrary to popular thought--the human brain is really stupid.
@Flannery's NoteBook Ah, I understand.
But honestly, if it was up to me, I'd let the players do what they want;
If the players are having fun, and if it promotes the IP, why not?
Well I'm convinced that lawyers will probably never be replaced by machines because the law is very nuanced and complicated.
Maybe, it would've been fixed a long time ago if they just asked for artists permissions... pretty sure a lot of artists are more than willing to commission some training arts for them... Maybe, everytime that certain artist's art gets used, they get like part of the profit for that ai art's sales..
It'd be interesting to hear your take on AI generation of voices and copyright. Right now many companies are trying to get voice actors to train AI voices to be used in perpetuity to use however they see fit. More commonly, they're slipping in clauses in contracts to use voice actors' likeness for future work so they don't have to call voice actors into the recording studio anymore. We're trying to fight back but the big companies that use this won't amend their contracts to remove the clause, leaving voice actors in a hard place of either staying and lose out on future work or walk and lose those particular jobs. We're definitely going to have to adapt to this change in the industry but we don't want to be replaced.
Yea this practice should be banned cause it's basically stealing a persons identity, talent and livelyhood from them. This AI art will be absused the same way if it's not nipped in the bud.
@Cesar You can make a sound that is similar to someones voice, yes. That applies to famous people too. If you artificially, from scratch, make a digital voice and are in no way, shape or form suggesting or implying a person with said voice being involved, then there's literally nothing that can happen to you.
If you take a recording of a voice of ANYONE, regardless of whether they are famous or not, and then use THAT to 'teach' a computer to speak with that voice, then use that voice, then you can be sued. No fame is needed.
A sound itself (even in the form of voice) cannot be copyrighted, but a specific voice taken from a person belongs to them specifically.
You didn't prove anything at all. You only brought up something that doubles-down on what already applies to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in every country that has any sort of privacy protection laws in effect. Exactly because there are people as ignorant as you are about the law thinking that they can do anything unless it is explicitly stated for them. So there, the people that can actually be expected to be hurt through that mean are explicitly stated. That's all it does.
Another interesting element would surely be the *purpose* for which the AI is used. If it’s simply a tool to upscale one photo to better match the other ones in a collage, then that’s a very different proposition to it creating the entire piece itself, and I honestly think the former would qualify as simply an advancement on using other already-existing tools to do the same thing.
My biggest question is fan art and fan fiction. Both of those forms of media use other, copyrighted forms of media as inspiration. AIs just have access to a larger pool of information to for it's versions. I think that AI art should have a watermark in the corner, declaring it AI art, like how people have to put disclaimers on stories and such.
I could hear the joy when he said "that's going to be litigated many, many times in the future"
This one was a total head spin. Sometimes it feels like these complex topics need a bit of a TL:DR recap at the very end, but honestly that was a solid video that is super topical. I wonder if you could do one on other A.I. like ChatGPT and the ethics or legality of their use?
I know quite a few academics, authors, satirist & journalists who are quite concerned by the rise of these servers. In the case of the academics some are kind of terrified that they will never be able to issue literature based assignments every again once the ChatGPT and its equivalents become more widely used, especially given plagiarism checkers can't catch these types of texts.
Let’s talk 👆👆
I have something for you 🎁🎁
I really appreciate the nuance and thoroughness of covering the complexities. I do think it's worth looking into ways to essentially reimburse artists for their contributions to these databases - I really do think that the biggest ethical violation of the most recent breakthroughs is the trend of websites profiting (through ads if nothing else) off of the databases and AI research that was done with the same "fair use" exemption - Profitable ventures shouldn't get to use that exemption, especially if the people whose work was used for training the software could also see their livelihoods otherwise endangered by the same software. It seems like common sense that the distinction between fair use for academic research and what's become a profitable business model.
Lawyers: "A robot working as a lawyer? that is dumb"
Also Lawyers: "If you dare to use that robot lawyer, you will get jail time"
The Opening Arguments podcast is currently pitting an AI against a guy with no formal legal education, and the human is pantsing the AI so far.
Seriously. Are lawyers afraid of being beaten and couching that fear as an “ethical legal issue?”
Kinda logically tangential to: "If you dare to do/use something dumb, you will get jail time"
Yea most people who do something dumb will receive comeuppance, quickly or slowly. Like the idea of karma.
Amazing overview, can't wait to see what the updates are after the andy warhol foundation v goldsmith (unless they start to differentiate more with AI)
Proper fascinating topic- always love your videos mate, so informative ! I’ve watched just about every one on here AND on Nebula to boot! Do keep on, I so enjoy the interesting topics I come across through your commentary and evaluations!
I was surprised with the comic having the copyright for it removed after it was given. My understanding though is that this is under appeal. Also even though an AI generator was used to create the work there was a lot of other steps that were involved that without question required human input. My understanding is the creator of that comic created original characters using a 3d modeling program, captured stills of them, fed them into an image edition and used a filter to make them look more like 2d digital illustrations, exported those pics, fed them into an AI generator (Stable Diffusion) as reference images, and type in the words to generate the desired images. The creator then took those images, arranged them as desired, and wrote the words within the comic. To me at least I would think that though an image generator was used that a lot of human impute and creativity was used before and after which you would think would be enough to constitute human authorship with the final product.
I of course could be wrong about a couple things here since I am also a little busy but I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong especially if there is a linked source to back it up.
@Ian Wood Yup. I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak on what the law does or doesn't say. But I *am* an artist, computer scientist, and someone who's made both ai art and photographs. I'm absolutely confident that the ai art takes more effort than a photograph. It takes more creativity, skill, and effort. I can spend hours on ai art, whereas I can take an accidental photo in a split second. To say ai art takes less effort than a photo is a blatant lie. Just as a camera has settings, so do ai art tools. Just as you have to pick a subject to take a photo of, so too do you have to say what you want your art subject to be. Just as you have to "frame your shot" for a photo, so too must you do this for ai art. To compare high effort photography to low effort ai art is dishonest. As for the comic, there is no doubt that there was significant human effort in such a work. Because ai cannot currently generate entire comics. There still must have been significant human curation and effort to put it all together, at the very least.
@Kafke Seen some follow up articles that didn't get the attention earlier ones did though apparently the copyright for the comic wasn't actually removed by the USCO and was a glitch in the system but it's status is still under review.
People are forgetting that ai art doesn't come out of a vacuum. EVERY ai art piece had some aspect of human direction and creativity to, in the words of this video, "determine the framing, subject, settings of the device, etc.". If AI work is not sufficiently creative, neither is photographs. As AI art arguably takes more work than a photograph.
Not to mention that the AI is a tool created by a human, which took creativity to build. Arguably the software engineers have a vested interest in the eventual outputs.
There was a scene in _Generation O!_ where the bassist Nub said that playing any two chords or notes in sequence could be interpreted as an actionable derivative work of any other tune. A lot of real-life music copyright cases hinge on this concept. Depending on how one interprets derivative vs transformative, even typing 0-3-5 could infringe on Deep Purple's copyright for "Smoke on the Water".
@PrograError This was the point of that scene. All Been Heard Before.
If you're keen on songs that share chord progressions, check out "Four Chords Song" by Axis of Awesome. David Bennett also has a fairly extensive playlist of common chord progressions in popular music.
By the way, the vast majority of these progressions can be found in music dating back before the Baroque era, so they're all out of copyright.
well... modern song then have lots of it... it's like all the same chords...
Let’s talk 👆👆
I have something for you 🎁🎁🎁
As a lawyer, I wonder how you feel about people using chat gpt as their lawyer? Do you see a possible displacement on the legal field as it is happening to art?
Just a side note--At my community college, students will get written up for academic dishonesty once they use ChatGPT or other AI to "generate" or write assignments. So although lots of clickbait videos that tell students they are avoiding plagiarism by using ChatGPT to "write" their stuff, they are not avoiding being written up and suspended for using artificial intelligence to write essays rather than write them themselves.
@ArseneGray If you want good science, you need to make sure your scientists are of the highest practical level of knowledge. That means rigorous testing through the academic system.
@Vyl Bird Free cheating? the purpose of science is too amass knowledge not too amass academic honors. If a AI helps us by generating essays which fulfills the definition of new and worthy knowledge then we should celebrate it. Fighting it is not only a sing of narcissistic entitlement but also a crime against humanity.
We should not only be allowed to use AI but are morally obliged to do so.
@M I disagree. A lot of the time, the point of a writing assignment is to show that you've read and understood the topic in question, know how to do proper research, and know how to write. Like if I ask you to do an assignment on the civil war and you just make chatGPT do everything for you, it doesn't actually show that you know any of the above. At that point, why even have the assignment in the first place?
Is there a legal argument that AI art trained on a specific professional artists' work destroys the market for that work (because that seems like a very real possibility, and a big concern for working artists)
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! I have been hoping to see a lawyer's take on the topic
This feels like moment in the movie where we are setting precedent for robot rights based on dumb A.I that will be used to oppress far more human A.I and ultimately lead to the inevitable robot uprising. Part of me is hoping I get to live to see it, and part of me really doesn’t want to have to deal with that
"**For this to happen Congress would actually have to do some work though". Well said, sir. Instead, someone will just get on social media and whine about how unfair it is, asking their supporters for donations to help fight the cause, then use that money for themselves.
Thanks for this video. As legal counsel, I have been asking myself all of these same questions in the last few months so it is comforting to know that I am not alone. It is very frustrating to not being any closer to any answers though.
Legal topics aside, I'm pretty impressed with LegalEagle's clear effort. Most times I hear people talk about AI, they oversimplify the nature of how they work. LegalEagle has, without going into particulars, put stable diffusion into digestible terms. The respect he and his team gives to the topics they deal with is admirable.
@Darkzeroprojects It will get better very fast. I agree with everything you say but none of that will matter if the court decides to oversimplify the tech in it's ruling.. My point is the more people oversimplify and imply sentience.. the more the court will favor the ai companies. Ethics is linked to legality
Thing is, they one point said they'd not automate or push this stuff to creative endeavors, but now they're doing it more and more.
ALOT of people do not consider A.I. Image generators like stable diffusion and such as something Art needed.
And the Ethics of how it's been going have been to artists pretty questionable.
From the Samedoesart drama, the sudden A.I. made 2 days after kim kung gis death.
Then the fact some justify as a framework of why not or "if we don't someone else will" which is honestly a silly one to me.
I honestly don't care of the oversimplifications, because honestly I just don't find A.I. for this creative based medium that much worth being thing.
The only main thing it's being so far for is for the "cheap and fast mass production" crap, Corperations, and for one to exploit for whatever gain.
When I see A.I. generated images being sold at Artstation a art PROFILE site with NFT licenses purchase, I don't find it's really to "Help artists do things faster" .
@Seungwan Wee Only --test and --testp uses Stable Diffusion. The other versions of the AI don't use the Stable Diffusion software. --v 4 is not a stable diffusion based system.
Honestly he barely went into it and didn't even point out the blatant inaccuracies and lies presented about the workings of the technology found in the artists lawsuit, as usual he held a neutral stance that's talking from the point of the law but it's pretty clear he did not research how latent diffusion actually works.
I definitely think we have gotten to a point where contracts with AI are necessary for work/corporate purposes but they should have a custodian like a minor child signing a contract. Like if you program an AI to commit a crime or design a great product either way a human being created it because it created and maintains the AI.
I'm thinking what would happen if an AI generated piece was used in a book maybe even the cover, then someone too that image and used it.
Considering the image wouldn't be protected by copyright, maybe the person who made the book would be unable to stop the other person from using it in a different book.
If it happened, maybe companies would go back to the artists just to be able to protect their works.
@thejadegecko, not exactly the same thing I said.
This case talked about the backlash.
What I'm saying is that, supposedly, anyone can use anyway they want the image on the cover if they remove the text.
You could use that image on a billboard for a totally different product.
You could use it as a cover for another book with a totally difference story.
They are already doing it.
Look up "christopher paolini ai cover"...
And the fact that the author just shrugged his shoulders and said he doesn't want to push the book back again to get a little new cover.
I hope his book gets reported.
I would love to see you have a conversation with Tom Nicholas on copyright! Bringing a law specialist and literary specialist into conversation would be fruitful.
I think a lot of this shows that we have to completely rethink the whole copyright system. It is highly complex, has to often be decided on a case by case analysis (keeping courts busy and lawyers rich), and in some cases got blown out of proportion (e.g., why exactly is a work still copyrighted 75 years after the death of the original author?).
However, depending on the changes done, we have to include a way to finance creative workers in the future (e.g. if copyright is no longer used or very limited, a lot of artists will not be able to monetize their work by selling copies). There are models for this, so it is not unthinkable.
But again, this might open the discussion of the future of work in general, so I guess we will have to deal with this highly complex and sometimes absurd system for a while longer...
Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁
Thank you for creating this video! I will be citing in for my research paper about AI art!
Speaking of Copyright and Mickey Mouse, can you talk on how Disney will lobby Congress to change copyright law again so that Mickey Mouse will not fall into the public domain this year? I feel that when policy is made to handle copyright on AI generated content that there will be a rider attached to the bill that will somehow extend Disney's copyright over Mickey Mouse. If you could do a video on this, that would be awesome!
@Just Some Guy Oh I'm aware of Disney's reputation. Just wanting to make sure exactly what was going into the public domain.
@Zhou Fang Some other countries have longer time spans than the US under the very same international treaties, so potentially, Disney could lobby congress to keep up with those other countries.
But otherwise they have the perpetual option of trademarking certain recognizable visual or word features of Mickey and maintaining it by publishing new products (not necessarily new art) with those trade markings. For example they could regularly publish new issues of the printed Mickey Mouse magazine with Mickey on the front page and new random selections of old Comic strips inside, and that would count as actively using the trademark to distinguish their genuine products from competing garbage. This would legally be the same as Rolex using their trade mark name and logo to distinguish their watches from any other watches from the same contract factory.
@Zhou Fang unfortunately congressional lobbying is legal in the United States, also last time there was heavy lobbying and like I said I believe they will try to put it though as a rider on another bill to avoid the public eye. I just highly doubt that Disney will allow Mickey to fall into the public domain quietly
@SALeydolt that's (a) illegal (b) sure wasn't how they went about it last time round and (c) counterproductive because selling the idea to the public is a big part of their efforts.
The thing I hate most about Disney trying so hard to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, is that Disney's whole animated empire is based off of stories from the public domain. It is just so hypocritical for them to skirt public domain when so much of thier empire was built on it's back.
AI images generally are not copyright infringement, but there are the problematic cases where oops it generated about the same image as something that already exists.
I love the idea that you could just be so bad that you wouldn't infringe copyright 😄
There's another AI issue that has flared up on youtube and the internet.
A popular streamer Asmongold (and now others) have had his videos used (by consent) to train an AI streamer (a deep fake representation of a streamer trained to answer questions in the style of the streamer).
This is absolutely awesome and funny to watch, which may be very spooky for streamers who make a living out of it.
What actually prevents people from using streamers youtube videos to train an AI streamer, and publish the AI streamer to produce income?
Why should it be prevented? See, what generates the value of a product, be it a Poster you buy, a Song you listen to or a Stream you watch, is not the "work" and "how" behind it. It is solely the end result. People engage with those products because they like what they are and not how they became. Prohibiting this will not only reduce the amount of good products out there but also hinder humanity's progress.
This is why it's pretty ridiculous how many copyright claims against musicians for songs that sound similar. The "style" isn't copyrightable so they should in theory all be thrown out unless there is literal copy pasting of the notes which can be picked out by a computer.
Prior to "Blurred Lines", in most copyright infringement lawsuits, the melody's notes are in fact the same intervals, and close to the same durations; furthermore, the chords providing harmony are often very similar. It's nothing to do with "picked out by computer" and copying the style of the music was usually not part of the plaintiff's legal argument. The problem with music is there only 12 notes, so in most cases, musicologists can point out songs with the same melody and chords that preceded both songs.
However "Blurred Lines" is the exception that changes everything; the melody is not identical but Pharrell et al. clearly copied the feel of "Got to Give It Up" and surprisingly the Marvin Gaye estate won.
Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁
Thank you for talking about this. One of my dear friends and artists, Kelly McKernan is mentioned. Her business has been seriously impacted by AI. Please support independent artists.
Links to her site or portfolio?
What really worries me is the idea of the Senate (average age 63) and house (average age 58) will be writing laws on breaking edge tech. Most of whom couldn't tell you the difference between C++ and Python.
@Matthew Kleinmann and the other can drive you crazy
I kind of agree that understanding the way this technology works could be beneficial, but lawyers learning programming languages is a waste of their time. We teach enough useless crap already.
i was thinking this. especially after that facebook scandal
The fact he joked about corporations technically counting as a person, and then jokingly said a computer isn't for now; leads me to believe one day robots will count as a person rip
It sort of seems to me that the solution is going to wind up something along the lines of "artists must be paid to license the use of their work for the purposes of machine-learning".
I think a lot of it will hinge on the fact that machines don't "learn" in the sense that we humans do. As I understand it, it's more that they poll together enough individual pieces of art and "reference" them in various ways. So where a human might unintentionally reference a style or technique to create something derivative, a machine will do so almost in real-time. But that's obviously just speculation on my part.
I think it can/will be solved with one simple solution, they will just add a disclaimer like Twitter does. 'This content may or maynot be copyright infringement. Use at your own risk.' Then they can shift blame from the AI company to the users themselves, while allowing the AI company to continue their practices.
The editor is making great use of Clip-Share's new policy on intellectual property displayed in less than so many seconds, not too long ago this video would have gotten strikes or demonetized for showing clips of transformers or Moe.
id really like to hear your legal opinion on the fact that stable diffusion was also caught taking images of private medical records into its database
could that be brought into any of the lawsuits? is there any current laws that could at least have private information removed from the database? whats the limit for how an ai can comb through the internet and who gets in trouble for if it grabs something private?
would that effect an artists case if they specifically state on their own website (or in some cases, a third party art hosting site that has a no ai tag or something) they dont allow their work to be used to train ai?
Dan Fogelberg had to defend himself in court against copyright infringement on a CCR song he wrote and performed vs. a new song he released as a solo artist! He was on the witness stand giving the jury music lessons on cord progressions and how his voice was always going to sound like him. Copyright and Patent Laws today are I’ll suited for what Ben Franklin had in mind.
Don't pay attention to argumrnts, pay attention to rulings. Lawyers throw everything at the wall during cases just to see whats sticks- that doesn't tell you whether the law is good.
@AncientDirtbag It was Fogerty. CCR's label claimed Fogerty's "The Old Man Down the Road" was too similar to CCR's "Run Through the Jungle." It seemed like if CCR won, that would mean Fogerty wouldn't be able to make songs in his own style anymore. Thankfully Fogerty won, and he was eventually able to recover all of his legal fees too after a countersuit.
@Laura Hubbard heard it bowlth ways b
I think you meant John Fogerty.
It seems that the “complex collage” idea might be a determining factor. Could I take pieces of artworks and create a new image? Would it depend on how large the pieces were? What if I took thousands of pieces of various artworks then arranged them to resemble another artists work?
Is it a “complex collage” if the AI is comparing several works by an artist to determine consistent parameters then applying them to apply things like colour, measurement, spacing and texture to new subject matter? eg. Creating a colour palette and rendering a portrait with the same type of brush strokes is not that far removed from what is done in drawing apps anyway. Although specific colour palettes within the apps are probably copyrighted, you could potentially sample the colours elsewhere and recreate the colour palette manually and the work you produce won't infringe copyright law (unless they could somehow prove that you deliberately copied those colours)
AI art is not a collage of any kind. If that's the determining factor, then ai art is 100% okay. NO existing art is used in the generation of ai art. None whatsoever.
I'm really excited to hear more about AI copyright
I just realized something - in the cases of professional artists and such who have spent years of effort honing their craft, would they instead be able to seek damages for unauthorized reproduction or derivation of a proprietary method?
Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁
We are talking about an online scenario, so going outside of the US's and UK's law would be extremely helpful. I realise you studied law in the US, so what are some law channels from other parts of the world that may or may not have differing legal views on the situation at hand?
As far as I know, the _real_ problem that’s been surfacing with AI Art is the uprising ambiguity between genuine and generated content; One infamous case had an artist’s content removed because it resembled AI-generated content.
It’s gotten to the point where people have begun to train _themselves_ on how to spot the quirks of AI-generated content so that they aren’t fooled by it. One particular AI-generated piece was able to win against its organic competitors in a freaking _contest!_
It's the fault of the organizers then. We have chess systems that are more powerful than humans that could potentially be used to cheat in chess competitions but the organizers make sure that everyone plays fair.
isnt that more a compliment on the rising skill levels of ai
I have thought of a story where a robot who wants to be a lawyer having to represent a robot that wants to be a doctor
This is actually very interesting to me
Careful! Don't share too many details or an AI might steal and write that novel in seconds.
Are the robots self aware? Because most conflict on stuff like “ai art” is that it replaces thinking and creativity for algorithms that cannot think. So what if the machine has true thinking?
Ask GPT to write it!!!
detroit become human vibes
The comic book story is interesting, because I assume there is some level of curation there, separating the wheat from the chaff, and that curation makes it the work of a human being.
If nothing else, the prompt is the work of a human being, meaning there is creative work, done by a human being, which is then processed by a machine, resulting in a unique work that would logically belong to the human being as the author of the prompt.
At what point does a photoshop filter strip copyright from a work?
15:30 has a great example. The genre of dystopian novels is 100% derived. Each and every contemporary work is derived from 1984 and its peers such as We. Unlike most other genres, the scope is so limited that the pool of work tends to be different interpretations of the same story.
Also, one of the newest arguments to arise is the fact that some artists are using AI generated images for reference. Which seems like a problem that folds in on itself.
We need a new Turing Test where a judge has to read text arguments written by two opposing lawyers and the judge must determine if one or both lawyers are AI. It could be expanded where a lawyer has to decide if their counterpart or even the judge are human.
I can't wait until this is decided in court. It's going to come down to a simple question of whether A.I.s are sentient enough. The philosophy of "I think, therefore I am." will suddenly be very relevant.
The issue I often have with this is that these programs can't actually have ideas. They don't have comprehension of the expression of those ideas. What they produce has no feeling or understanding behind it. Just simply the separation of a visual piece into it's component pixels which are then rearranged and reapplied to a new piece. It's part of why the first versions of these tools produced things that basically just looked like blobs in the vague idea of the object. It's why even now they regularly mess up key components of the subject of the piece. We've just spent a lot of effort and time helping them refine the reconstructed piece into something humans see as the thing.
Exceptional video. I license art from artists and recently I have been inundated with AI pitched art. For now, I’m staying away from it. I see the best use of it as an idea generator that an actual artists uses as a general starting point. Besides, AI now can’t pull off hands or faces without being detectable.
I assume people say AI art as an abbreviation to keep it simple, rather than *"a neural network-based machine learning algorithm"* or whatever else its called
@DevilMan if you are talking img2img then yes, but that wouldn't be very honest.
a bit strong to accuse someone of talking shit when you're the one doing it. i realize it's because you don't know any better but why then the strong opinion? like, you just got a clue that perhaps you're in the wrong - couldn't you have done a simple google search about how ai art works?
@Ilyak1986 you don't lose copyright to something if it's on the internet. If that were so I'd go out and sell bootleg CDs of every great artist on YT right now
@Stacey Kimbell owe? You don't owe anything. You put material on the internet, and now it's open source. Ultimately, placing something on the internet is sharing it, one way or another. Don't want something used by someone else? Don't share it.
@Ilyak1986 why do I owe a software developer the use of my IP to improve sales of his product?
Thank you for this! Learned a good bit. Would you beable to do another video on AI & Deepfakes.. And what do we own about ourselves? Our voice, Appearance, and Everything about us (writings, Recordings, and all our info). What do we own about ourselves and how does law see it with AI art and Deepfakes?
I worry about companies hiring artists to create a series of work, but specify in the contract that any rights to the works created for the company are for the company to use in any way as they see fit. I believe this is often already the case, but taking this a step further would mean that the company could just feed the work into an A.I. generator and create all future works they require in a similar style at a fraction of the cost. This would effectively screw the original artist out of an otherwise consistent income.
Let’s talk 👆👆🎁❤️
I watched the corridor digital video and they talked about a noising and denoising step. Basically re-creating the image in a way that's is different enough in detail but close enough in essence. Instead of using noise if a human did a reinterputation of some sort, I think the new work would be fair use and later the images generated by the model trained on that image should be too. I am guessing a lot will rely on if a non-human entity can re-create a original (non-copyrightable) image from an existing one
That set of images of robots in Starry Night style is a great point against the lawsuit's claim that the program is "just a 21st century collage program". It's not copying any previous paintings at all. It's just identifying characteristics of style and abstract object definitions to identify how it should produce the desired subject matter within the style provided. That's remarkably close to teaching someone a technique and then telling them to demonstrate that technique. True there's a lot more randomness and guesswork about the subject matter unless a lot of specifications are given, because it is an algorithm, but it isn't "derivative".
It's so interesting to see how diverse the world is and what holds importance to some
I tell you as soon as Disney trains an AI in cartoon art and use it to make a future length movie they will get a copyright.
@小月猫 i've never understood this, how does stricter copyright laws hurt indie creators?? If this lawsuit doesn't do anything it will only hurt independent artists.
@ChaosMonkey disney is literally a part of the plaintiffs in one of these cases, trust me, disney has every incentive to make copyright laws stricter, as it only helps big corpos and hurts the indie creators
Maybe; they loose Mickey Mouse next year, gotta replace him some how lol. I personally love using AI interpolation on my own youtube channel
@Amethyst Imagination That's how it works, and cheaper and easier than trying to buy them out or a controlling interest in the company. It's like short selling, but even nastier.
See: When ZeniMax (Bethesda software) tried to preempt the emergent VR market by suing Oculus for nothing less than control of the company, but only after Facebook offered billions for it.
I've always thought of myself as a great mimic writer. I've written scenes of works like Firefly and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which have very unique narrative voices, and my work is almost indistinguishable from the original in terms of style. It's an ability I'm proud of but also I've always thought of as useless in misg senses.
If only I was an artist of a visual medium, apparently, this skill would actually be worth something! Of course, there is less of a call for me to write a scene that perfectly mimics, say, RDJ as Tony Stark when you can't use the character of Tony Stark, but there you go.
Also, FYI, only one version of MidJourney actually uses StableDiffusion; most versions of it are not based on StableDiffusion but are their own independent program that is separate from StableDiffusion.
I am actually interested in whether a paralegal could use chatGPT to pass the bar and work as a lawyer all without going to school
These "companies" already shot themselves in the foot when interviewed stating that "artists have to OPT OUT" of data scraping... in other words, they KNEW what they were doing when trolling for images was wrong.
Because copyright is done on a case by case basis, I feel like it needs to move onto a more objective approach such as an algorithm comparing the two works and determining if there is something like a more than 90% likeness or whatever arbitrary threshold you could consider to be a copy, since it could be done before a work is even published.
I think the bigger issue is that in the future (very soon) this can apply to far more than images. Even now I can use whisper to grab an audio from this very video to perfectly transcribe it, had it rewrite it using any new LLM so it sounds different. I can use any of the new Ai voices to narrate it and put some Ai talking head - and I have a video that was: A) super low effort on my poart and zero knowledge, B) sounds and looks very different from yours. Of course because the current Ai voices and Ai talking heads are still semi-lame (although the Ai voices are nearly there), it would look worse than yours. But how about a year from now? Or five years? I'm not sure people quite understand the implications because almost anybody's creative work can be transformed using ML with low effort. On one hand you have the originator (you) who puts a lot of knowledge into this and on other side you have a low-effort copy that can be created by anybody and, in some way may exhibit better values. We will soon have this same debate for music, the models already exists. (but so does music lobby) and so on.
Get over it
If the script was completely re-written, that would be perfectly legal. People do this all the time, in the news business. You see tons of articles from different news sites essentially saying the same thing, just re-written about some breaking big news story. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. If someone else wanted to take the script of this video, and re-write it and change it a little and make their own video about the same topic, they are free to do so. That's it's own new original work.
@Hexl Art I think quite the opposite. It shows that artists had a gross misunderstanding of art all this time
@Hans Weidig IV There is something original to Neil Gaiman, though. There is no way for an AI to make something truly unique or original, not unless you count a series of dice rolls to be original. There's no divine spark, at least not right now. Math homework isn't an original work, and right now? That's all there is behind AI.
I woke at 4 this morning and remembered Night Court from the 80’s. Such a good show, have you ever reviewed it?
I know it is not *technically* illegal to do that, but I feel like most artists (that is, individual, self employed artists, I do not think this is the case for corporatized art) would politely but firmly tell you to get lost, because that feels like something the artist might get sued for
You raise an interesting point by describing what aspects lead to minimum creativity - each of the aspects you describe are handled for you in modern cameras - see the dance crazes with face following used as an example - i would imagine the framing would be next and only the choice of subject would afterwards remain - when would we lose minimal creativity? Or is the choice of what to photograph enough in and of itself? That’s what i mean my an interesting point here
It'd be interesting if you made a video about what's happening with Character AI
During your explanation of photography being copyright-able it sounded a lot like AI art generation (settings, composition, etc). I bet there's an interesting argument to be made that the person(s) who built the AI have the copyrights.
Writing the prompts, selecting the parameters, and making a template image for image to image also makes a strong case for the person generating the image. Also what if they take it to Photoshop and makes changes to it there?
imagine getting an ai to decide if one picture is infringing the copyright of another
@mking1999 They usually don't, but if the copyright holder notices and decides to do something about it, they have a serious problem.
@therabbithat I don't think artists that have made comissions that contain copyrighted characters or something generally pay the copyright holder anything, so I'm not sure why taking a publicly available image would require it.
It's all AI, all the way down. 🤯
@therabbithat define "use". At least in the case of Stable Diffusion (the one we have the full description of how it works) the data set LAION creates a fancy thumbnail when it "uses" the actual image (so likely under fair use) collapsing 200tb of source images and related text to a 6tb data set, training a Stable Diffusion model "uses" all of those fancy thumbnails thousands of times each to create a 5gb model describing all the internal associations between small and large arrangements of pixels and between pixels and text losing any specific associations with act particular work, which is a "new purpose" defense if I've ever heard one, then generating an image feeds random noise through that model weighted by your input text - "using" of any particular work sounds impossible to define (let alone implement) and most likely would end up with the "use" spread like butter over toast over every image in the dataset, which would likely be below the bar of meaningful infringement in each case.
Current copyright law just doesn't seem to be your friend here. If you want to protect art commissions, I suggest talking to a politician, not a lawyer. But first, figure out what that law change should be, and to do that figure out what ai image generation actually is and does so it's an implementable law.
@Cesar that's what you'd hope, but it is not in fact the case that ai is in any way free of bias of its creators. the dataset used encodes their bias, and then the ai happily slurps that bias up and runs with it.
The Cartoon Mouse Wearing Red Shorts example does raise an interesting question with respect to trademarks, though. What happens if AI Generators use/recreate trademarks without authorization?
The key is what constitute derivative and what transformative. There's a lawsuit for that, the Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts was sued photographer Lynn Goldsmith, because the photographer claims the art is just derivative and not transformative enough. The result of the Supreme Court is going to have great repercussions for things like fair use, fan art, parody, etc.