AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[dragoner]

Well, we do for a lot of things. But sometimes I might copy an article or something for a paper for a class, or something as such. I can cite it however I want, but I'm still using copyrighted material for my class that I don't have permission to use (well, sometimes; some materials give a specific okay for educational purposes). But even then, that doesn't really change the argument nor the result: yes, they could stop me if they wanted to. It's within their right! They don't because my usage is so small that it barely matters. It's just not the same scale.

It's like comparing a massive torrent site versus a guy photocopying sections of a rulebook so that everyone in his group can have access to that section without owning a book. One is closer to an actual problem, the other is not.

Stuff like that is often covered under fair use, schools are also given special consideration. OpenAI is microsoft, it is not like they didn't have the money to pay, it is just their business model to do something and apologize or patch later. Plus AI is not a person, it lacks agency under the law.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Stuff like that is often covered under fair use, schools are also given special consideration. OpenAI is microsoft, it is not like they didn't have the money to pay, it is just their business model to do something and apologize or patch later. Plus AI is not a person, it lacks agency under the law.

I mean, I don't disagree with a lot of that, but there are definitely non-fair use stuff that happens in schools. But again, what happens is that people often look the other way because it's not to their benefit to prosecute us. Actually trying to stop this sort of usage would require measures that would basically take your material off the market.

For AI usage, it's just so much more expansive and dangerous to people's livelihoods. My usage of someone's copyrighted material doesn't threaten to replace them like AI usage does.

 

[dragoner]

I mean, I don't disagree with a lot of that, but there are definitely non-fair use stuff that happens in schools. But again, what happens is that people often look the other way because it's not to their benefit to prosecute us. Actually trying to stop this sort of usage would require measures that would basically take your material off the market.

For AI usage, it's just so much more expansive and dangerous to people's livelihoods. My usage of someone's copyrighted material doesn't threaten to replace them like AI usage does.

Teamsters, and SAG showed the way to deal with protecting their jobs, there should be a Content Creators Union to do the same. However, I don't think the AI companies are even going to look at overturning copyright law, as they hold copyrights also, so that it is not in their interests. I don't know the endgame, though to take a stab, I would say after the dust settles, big companies like Disney, or WOTC will not go after small users, though they might go after DTRPG saying for them to stop selling material using their copyrighted material, and leave it to them to do the take downs.

For me personally, AI art makes my job harder because even after I have clicked on excluding AI art on a search of adobe stock, it cuts out hits from say 80,000 to only 20,000. I have had to remove pictures I paid for, because the artist later posted it was AI art. I don't get that time and money back, plus I think because people saw the original AI art, they might have downgraded me. I accept that AI is here to stay, though I don't like feeling ripped off by it all. It is not fair either for the stock art sites to be flooded with art that is unusable, there is enough of that without the AI art.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When a thief admits to being a thief you don't need to wait for the courts to decide. They literally admit to being thieves.

If you're right, why is the situation so far unresolved? Perhaps not everyone has drawn the same conclusions you have.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, we do for a lot of things. But sometimes I might copy an article or something for a paper for a class, or something as such. I can cite it however I want, but I'm still using copyrighted material for my class that I don't have permission to use (well, sometimes; some materials give a specific okay for educational purposes). But even then, that doesn't really change the argument nor the result: yes, they could stop me if they wanted to. It's within their right! They don't because my usage is so small that it barely matters. It's just not the same scale.

It's like comparing a massive torrent site versus a guy photocopying sections of a rulebook so that everyone in his group can have access to that section without owning a book. One is closer to an actual problem, the other is not.

There are legal exceptions and limitations on copyright under certain circumstances, including education, research, archival, etc. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if and/or how much those exceptions could/would apply to AI. And from what I've been reading they are purposely broad and flexible, which adds more uncertainty into the mix.

Oh, and in response to your other post, a lot of comparisons are initially flawed when new technology happens. That's why we need clarity from the courts and usually new law is eventually enacted by the state and federal governments.

I'd be curious what any of the lawyers here on the site think.

 

[Scribe]

If you're right, why is the situation so far unresolved? Perhaps not everyone has drawn the same conclusions you have.

 

[MarkB]

I mean, I don't disagree with a lot of that, but there are definitely non-fair use stuff that happens in schools. But again, what happens is that people often look the other way because it's not to their benefit to prosecute us. Actually trying to stop this sort of usage would require measures that would basically take your material off the market.

For AI usage, it's just so much more expansive and dangerous to people's livelihoods. My usage of someone's copyrighted material doesn't threaten to replace them like AI usage does.

For audio and video material, there will often be a flat fee that covers the use of licensed material by a company. For instance, a property management company may pay a flat fee to the Motion Picture Licensing Company which covers them for any showing of streaming or DVD movies in residents' lounges at their properties. Schools may well use a similar arrangement, which means they don't need to worry about licensing titles individually for airing to pupils.

 

[Ryujin]

An example of how this is affecting the Youtube creator space. Hopefully many of you already know who Kyle Hill is.

EDIT - Admittedly, AI is only a part of this phenomenon.

 

[Bohandas]

Generally speaking it's relatively menial jobs, not creative ones, that are made redundant by advances in technology.

I for obe am not in the least surprised that automation is touching creative jobs. I'm surprised it's taken this long to happen. And I applaud it for its role in banishing long vitalist superstitions that attributed creativity basically to some kind of sorcery.

 

[Bohandas]

There are legal exceptions and limitations on copyright under certain circumstances, including education, research, archival, etc. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if and/or how much those exceptions could/would apply to AI. And from what I've been reading they are purposely broad and flexible, which adds more uncertainty into the mix.

I'm not a legal expert either but from what I can understand as a layman this looks like it should clearly be transformative use and thus covered. And if it's not transformative use than what is.

Furthermore, and as an aside, since we have this technology now it's probably time for the existence of copyright law to be reconsidered by the government anyway, as it's protecting professions which - if the reaction of people within the professions is anything at all to go by - are now obsolete, and therefore unnecessary and wasteful for the government to be actively cultivating.