The problem is that if copyrighted works are used, you could generate a copyrighted artwork that would be made into public domain, stripping its protection. I would love this approach, the problem is the lobbyists don’t agree with me.
Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I’d say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.
I think that if I paint with my own brush a mario artwork that isn’t to Nintendo’s standart, they have the legal power to take it down from wherever I upload
I’m really not in the know abput these things but I have seen free fangames taken down because they used copyrighted property even though the creators don’t receive a penny.
I’ll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It’s my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we’ll see if that remains true.
Copyrights and IP laws don’t only come into effect if profit is made. Fan products are usually tolerated by companies because it’s free advertising and fans get angry when it does get taken down.
When a fan product starts making money, it’s usually because it directly competes with the original IP and then they act. Even then, Etsy has thousands of shops with copyrighted content but the small profit loss doesnt justify the loss of reputation for the companies.
That being said, it’s the user who uploads it who is at fault and not the tool used to create it.
Ultimately, I think it’s the platforms that let users upload copyrighted content and celebrity likenesses that should be at fault. Take for example the Taylor Swift debacle. An image generator was used to create the images sure but twitter chose to let it float on their website for a whole day even though it was most likely reported in the first 5 minutes.
There’s also the fact that if we start demanding AI doesn’t use copyrighted content, it kills the open source scene and cements Google and Microsoft’s grip on our economy as we move towards an AI driven society.
In my opinion making AI stop taking copyrighted content can only be enforced by making all AI development open source, datasets and models included. This is the way to loosen the control bigmonopolies like Google and Microsoft have over it.
Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it’s a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.
I think that if someone uploads mario doing warcrimes to twitter and it gets viral, there is no “I made it with my own brush” that can save you from Nintendo taking the artwork down.
This example also works with a fanart of a celebrity in a sexual context without any AI use.
Yes, fanart is almost certainly copyright infringement unless the copyright holder grants a license. Many companies have an official license for non-commercial fanart and generally nobody cares about it but if someone really wanted to they could absolutely file takedown requests against all fanart of their work.
The existing legal precedence in most places is that most use of ML doesn’t count as human expression and doesn’t have copyright protection. You have to have significant control over the creation of the output to have copyright (the easiest workaround is simply manually modifying the ML output and then only releasing the modified version)
I know that’s how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.
Exactly! When you pay for a service you own the copyright, like having a photoshop license. I meant in other situations where it’s free or provided as research tools to engineers under a company.
The problem is that if copyrighted works are used, you could generate a copyrighted artwork that would be made into public domain, stripping its protection. I would love this approach, the problem is the lobbyists don’t agree with me.
Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I’d say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.
I think that if I paint with my own brush a mario artwork that isn’t to Nintendo’s standart, they have the legal power to take it down from wherever I upload
Really? Even if your artwork isn’t used in a commercial way?
I’m really not in the know abput these things but I have seen free fangames taken down because they used copyrighted property even though the creators don’t receive a penny.
I’ll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It’s my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we’ll see if that remains true.
Copyrights and IP laws don’t only come into effect if profit is made. Fan products are usually tolerated by companies because it’s free advertising and fans get angry when it does get taken down.
When a fan product starts making money, it’s usually because it directly competes with the original IP and then they act. Even then, Etsy has thousands of shops with copyrighted content but the small profit loss doesnt justify the loss of reputation for the companies.
That being said, it’s the user who uploads it who is at fault and not the tool used to create it.
Ultimately, I think it’s the platforms that let users upload copyrighted content and celebrity likenesses that should be at fault. Take for example the Taylor Swift debacle. An image generator was used to create the images sure but twitter chose to let it float on their website for a whole day even though it was most likely reported in the first 5 minutes.
There’s also the fact that if we start demanding AI doesn’t use copyrighted content, it kills the open source scene and cements Google and Microsoft’s grip on our economy as we move towards an AI driven society.
In my opinion making AI stop taking copyrighted content can only be enforced by making all AI development open source, datasets and models included. This is the way to loosen the control bigmonopolies like Google and Microsoft have over it.
Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it’s a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.
I think that if someone uploads mario doing warcrimes to twitter and it gets viral, there is no “I made it with my own brush” that can save you from Nintendo taking the artwork down.
This example also works with a fanart of a celebrity in a sexual context without any AI use.
Yes, fanart is almost certainly copyright infringement unless the copyright holder grants a license. Many companies have an official license for non-commercial fanart and generally nobody cares about it but if someone really wanted to they could absolutely file takedown requests against all fanart of their work.
The existing legal precedence in most places is that most use of ML doesn’t count as human expression and doesn’t have copyright protection. You have to have significant control over the creation of the output to have copyright (the easiest workaround is simply manually modifying the ML output and then only releasing the modified version)
I know that’s how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.
The law says human creative expression
At what point does human creative expression become a sentient being?
If you rent a brush to paint with, is the painting not yours? If you rent a musical instrument to record an original song with, is the song not yours?
Read the fine print on that agreement
Exactly! When you pay for a service you own the copyright, like having a photoshop license. I meant in other situations where it’s free or provided as research tools to engineers under a company.