A.I. Versus The Law

@Taichou Marco
In order to read my comment (aka IP) does your device not download and display it?

very nice

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.

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.

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.

@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.

Thank you!

@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

@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?"_

ok

ok

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?

He (Devin) is a human but the editor(s)..I have never seen this person so maybe they actually are an AI?

@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

👍

🤪

i like it

very nice

Nice

@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.

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.

Let’s talk👆👆🎊🎊❤️

@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.

@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.

@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

Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁

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.

@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.

​@Matt you would also need proof you created it without using a.i

You'd need a proof it was ai made first

Let’s talk👆👆🎊🎊❤️

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.

Correct!

@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

Agreed

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 🎁🎁❤️

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

Humans are involved in every AI art piece. You're mistaken. A photograph takes less human effort than an ai art piece.

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?

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.

Let’s talk 👆👆
I have something for you 🎁🎁

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.

@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.

Let’s talk👆👆🎊🎊❤️

@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 🎁🎁🎁

@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?

@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

@Jeremy Maas
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.

@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.

Let’s talk👆👆🎊🎊

Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁

@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.

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.

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 👆👆🎁🎁

Links to her site or portfolio?

@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.

@SheyD78 close

i was thinking this. especially after that facebook scandal

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.

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.

Let’s talk 👆👆🎁🎁

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

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

Lame lol

@Jrasta111
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?

Let’s talk 👆👆🎁❤️

@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.

Let’s talk👆👆🎊🎊

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.

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?

@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.