AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Jfdlsjfd]

Well that's the discussion here (and elsewhere), isn't it? AI can and does reproduce works that have been read into it. Is it a case of "infinite monkeys", or is it because the works exist in their complete form in the generative AI? Does copyright apply or doesn't it? If it reproduces the works that were used to train it then they could be assumed to exist within it. To me, that breaches copyright.

It is a series of numerical values that doesn't correspond to the image. It's not like a model is a sum of everything it was created on, much like a description with words of a painting doesn't infringe IP rights of the painter. As I said, it would be assuming a lot, for someone with no knowledge of copyright nor working of AI, to think it is protected before doing a lot of research, understand the process, analyze legal precedents and determine whether it is protected or not... over the course of this, one is bound to discover that opt-out that as been chosen.

Let's see where the law comes down on it and the "public benefit" is debatable. Damage to the individual has to be weighed against it, even if benefit exists.

Well, by definition, the Text and Datamining Exception was build to allow opt-out scraping and help the development of AI, so the law is no longer unclear on this particular point. Other countries might very well make other choices (some countries don't even have deemed copyright to be a useful thing to implement, though there are few of them) and a wide margin of possible stances on the adequate balance to be reached, depending on local circumstances.

And while we can certainly discuss the scope of the benefit (from fostering an economy around AI that lead to improvement in productivity, new fields of medicine or engineering... to giving everyone access to cheap text-to-image solutions without the need to learn to draw...) to weigh against the needs of the few, I think discussing the democratic adequacy of the legislative process of the EU with regard to public interest is, to be best of my ability to interpret it, faling under the "no politics" rule.

 

[Ryujin]

It is a series of numerical values that doesn't correspond to the image. It's not like a model is a sum of everything it was created on, much like a description with words of a painting doesn't infringe IP rights of the painter. As I said, it would be assuming a lot, for someone with no knowledge of copyright nor working of AI, to think it is protected before doing a lot of research, understand the process, analyze legal precedents and determine whether it is protected or not... over the course of this, one is bound to discover that opt-out that as been chosen.

Well, by definition, the Text and Datamining Exception was build to allow opt-out scraping and help the development of AI, so the law is no longer unclear on this particular point. Other countries might very well make other choices (some countries don't even have deemed copyright to be a useful thing to implement, though there are few of them) and a wide margin of possible stances on the adequate balance to be reached.

And while we can certainly discuss the scope of the benefit (from fostering an economy around AI that lead to improvement in productivity, new fields of medicine or engineering... to giving everyone access to cheap text-to-image solutions without the need to learn to draw...) to weigh against the needs of the few, I think discussing the democratic adequacy of the legislative process of the EU with regard to public interest is, to be best of my ability to interpret it, faling under the "no politics" rule.

And a digital image made from a hard copy is just a collection of pixels, which are nothing more than a series of numerical values, that can run afoul of copyright. The 'numerical values' do indeed correspond to the original image, or they would have no value.

This always brings me back to Will Smith's line from "I, Robot." To paraphrase, "USR, crapping on the little guy." I've said it before and at this point there is little chance that anyone is going to convince me otherwise: If your technology can't exist without stealing the hard work of others, then it doesn't deserve to exist.

EDIT - That the opt-out rule exists to me indicates that, at least to some degree, those who created it agree with me. They simply took the non-solution over a real solution, for reasons of their own.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And a digital image made from a hard copy is just a collection of pixels, which are nothing more than a series of numerical values, that can run afoul of copyright. The 'numerical values' do indeed correspond to the original image, or they would have no value.

Not necessarily. Here is my work of art:

It is 100% non-AI generated. You could transform it into a series of pixel recreating the art, or you could say "a 3cmx2cm yellow rectangle with a red border and badly cropped white background". If you do the former, you're infringing my copyright over my masterpiece. If you're storing the latter in a file, you are not. There are different means of storing information that doesn't imply that the whole of the artwork is contained into the model in a way that infringe copyright. It would be a lot of assumption for someone really knowing nothing about copyright to think of accusing AI model before filing a lawsuit against someone who would actually generate a copyright-infringing image with the tool. And a very quick research into this will lead to discovering that opt-out was the selected solution.

I've said it before and at this point there is little chance that anyone is going to convince me otherwise: If your technology can't exist without stealing the hard work of others, then it doesn't deserve to exist.

But if it's allowed, it's not stealing, therefore it makes the point moot (also, it was never stealing, it was copyright infringement).

I think your point should be phrased more "if a technology cannot exist without doing something I am not happy with, then it doesn't deserve to exist", so it doesn't anchor the argument into something, like stealing, which is objectively defined by the law, while "deserving" is more of a moral, individual thing) is perfectly fine and I react as you do with regard to (well, I was going to provide an example, but it would certainly run afoul of the no politics rules, so let's say the green beans farming industry), and while I do think they don't deserve to exist, I don't have a problem with them undeservingly existing according to my personal moral evaluation, as long as they don't run afoul of the law.

 

[Ryujin]

Not necessarily. Here is my work of art:

View attachment 351879

It is 100% non-AI generated. You could transform it into a series of pixel recreating the art, or you could say "a 3cmx2cm yellow rectangle with a red border and badly cropped white background". If you do the former, you're infringing my copyright over my masterpiece. If you're storing the latter in a file, you are not. There are different means of storing information that doesn't imply that the whole of the artwork is contained into the model in a way that infringe copyright. It would be a lot of assumption for someone really knowing nothing about copyright to think of accusing AI model before filing a lawsuit against someone who would actually generate a copyright-infringing image with the tool. And a very quick research into this will lead to discovering that opt-out was the selected solution.



But if it's allowed, it's not stealing, therefore it makes the point moot (also, it was never stealing, it was copyright infringement).

I think your point should be phrased more "if a technology cannot exist without doing something I am not happy with, then it doesn't deserve to exist", so it doesn't anchor the argument into something, like stealing, which is objectively defined by the law, while "deserving" is more of a moral, individual thing. Which is perfectly fine and I react as you do with regard to (well, I was going to provide an example, but it would certainly run afoul of the no politics rules, so let's say the green beans farming industry), and while I do think they don't deserve to exist, I don't have a problem with them undeservingly existing according to my personal moral evaluation, as long as they don't run afoul of the law.

I would respond by saying that copyright infringement is a very specifically defined form of theft; that of intellectual property. It's far more than me not being happy with it, as I've previously stated through out this thread.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I would respond by saying that copyright infringement is a very specifically defined form of theft; that of intellectual property. It's far more than me not being happy with it, as I've previously stated through out this thread.

That depends. Here theft is defined, exactly, as the unlawful removing of someone else's physical property (intent to deprive the owner is also necessary, so if there are two beers on the table and you mistakenly drink your friend's, he can't sue you for theft, though you'll still be liable to repay his drink). So, copyright infringement can't be theft, since it doesn't involve removing anything from the author and it doesn't matter if the thing is physical and that's why we have a separate laws for it. Historically, copyright was created because it wasn't covered by the much older provisions against thieving (printers only made copies of a legally owned, bought book and actors where playing a play by having a single copy of the text of the play, learning it by heart), so I'd be very interested to see how, in your juridiction, they managed to define copyright infringement as a subset of theft.

 

[Ryujin]

That depends. Here theft is defined, exactly, as the unlawful removing of someone else's physical property (intent to deprive the owner is also necessary, so if there are two beers on the table and you mistakenly drink your friend's, he can't sue you for theft, though you'll still be liable to repay his drink). So, copyright infringement can't be theft, since it doesn't involve removing anything from the author and it doesn't matter if the thing is physical and that's why we have a separate laws for it. Historically, copyright was created because it wasn't covered by the much older provisions against thieving (printers only made copies of a legally owned, bought book), so I'd be very interested to see how, in your juridiction, they managed to define copyright infringement as a subset of theft.

As it deprives the author from being fairly compensated for their work it can be defined as theft in common parlance, if not legal definition.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

As it deprives the author from being fairly compensated for their work it can be defined as theft in common parlance, if not legal definition.

Common parlance is often misleading, especially on complex situations like the legal definition of AI training. Also, even in this broad definition, if a law somewhere stated "No compensation is due for being trained upon" or "a tax on the profits of generative AI, devoted to finance art scholarships in universities, is a fair compensation for the original author work being used for training", it wouldn't be theft in common parlance, yet you'd certainly still oppose it on moral ground, ie, "what the law has stated to be fair isn't fair", if I follow you correctly?

 

[Ryujin]

Common parlance is often misleading, especially on complex situations like the legal definition of AI training. Also, even in this broad definition, if a law somewhere stated "No compensation is due for being trained upon" or "a tax on the profits of generative AI, devoted to finance art scholarships in universities, is a fair compensation for the original author work being used for training", it wouldn't be theft in common parlance, yet you'd certainly still oppose it on moral ground, ie, "what the law has stated to be fair isn't fair", if I follow you correctly?

I think that in the case of something that extends beyond international borders, where the legal definitions can vary greatly, to quibble over the meaning of such a term is needless nitpicking.

I think that the use of people's work, without fair compensation, is ethically, morally, and should be legally abhorrent. There are exceptions in copyright law to allow for the educational use of materials. This does not extend to corporations, nor other similar entities.

A "tax" on AI does nothing to compensate the original creator. Until a levy was placed on the use of digital recording media, in Canada, I used to distribute my work on CD/DVD. The levy goes into a fund that is used to compensate the creators of intellectual property for the unlawful dissemination of their work, in theory. In practice it goes to large production houses. I, as a creator, had to pay it without having any way to get it back, so I modified my delivery methods. I was not being compensated. You can "What if...?" all you like. Mere speculation does little to change my feelings that are based on real experience with such things.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think that in the case of something that extends beyond international borders, where the legal definitions can vary greatly, to quibble over the meaning of such a term is needless nitpicking.

I beg to differ. Terms like theft carry a moral weight other infractions do not. Tax evasion can be described as theft using a broad definition, and yet many people wouldn't balk at deducting non eligible expanses. I think using them inappropriately could be way to make things look worse than they really are. It can be an approximation (and therefore it would be nitpicking to point it out) or an hyperbole (and thus deserving pointing out to defuse the rhetorical effect).

Also, it's especially important because it crosses international boundaries to be precise, because several countries can find several solutions to the problem, each adapted to their own situation (no copyright (San Marino), no art [aren't some muslim countries banning the representation of man altogether? or is it a thing of the past], opt-out, opt-in, no AI [Dune?])... There is no reason that what is good for the people of X is good for the people of Y. There are countries that make mandatory things that are forbidden in other and many more examples of things deemed totally harmless in some that are offenses elsewhere. Those countries can be both right at the same time.

I think that the use of people's work, without fair compensation, is ethically, morally, and should be legally abhorrent. There are exceptions in copyright law to allow for the educational use of materials.

By using the word "fair", you're positionning the debate into the field of morality. Everyone is using people's work without fair compensation. We don't pay anything to the inventors of the language we use, to the people who designed the numbers we use... because the law has made boundaries on the limit of time copyright protection applies to. Why is X years fair, and X-1 unfair? It's a tough question, but that's the job of lawmakers to take every view into account and produce texts that are optimal. Also, we are all dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants, and nobody would imagine that a scientist who make a breakthrough is a thief because he worked on the ideas of others without compensation. That ideas and concept can't be protected is also legal, but could be seen as unfair by a definiton as wide as "using people's work".

This does not extend to corporations, nor other similar entities.

And would it change anything? What is your stance on open source weights, who by definition don't earn anything to their author? This a concrete example, not an abstract theoretical one, as many very good LLM are open-source.

A "tax" on AI does nothing to compensate the original creator.

No, but it compensate creators in general, who had access to free education in art, free museums with extensive displays to get their inspiration from, public infrastructure like the Internet and grew in peaceful enough countries that they could become artists instead of being enrolled in a militia. Collective compensation is as fair as individual compensation, from a moral perspective, if it is devoted to enrich the social background that made learning artistic skills possible. Car pollutes, fumes diminish the quality of life of people and yet they are not compensated individually, but fuel taxes are devoted (in part) to fund environmental policies, so the damage I sustain by living in a city is compensated by having a natural reserve at the other side of the world. Do you think it's unfair? I don't. A fair compensation doesn't necessarily mean an individual compensation.

Until a levy was placed on the use of digital recording media, in Canada, I used to distribute my work on CD/DVD. The levy goes into a fund that is used to compensate the creators of intellectual property for the unlawful dissemination of their work, in theory. In practice it goes to large production houses. I, as a creator, had to pay it without having any way to get it back, so I modified my delivery methods. I was not being compensated. You can "What if...?" all you like. Mere speculation does little to change my feelings that are based on real experience with such things.

I am not what if'ing. I am proposing solutions, based on existing process not unlike the one you describe. That you felt robbed isn't something I'll dispute, and as a user of CD to store archive of data, I felt robbed by a similar policy of having to pay a tax despite not using it to infringe copyright (in France's case, it's was implemented as a tax on physical media). Interested parties have a hard time determining what's best, because of course their own interest blur the thing. At the time I'd have said "it's not my problem, the artists should just sue whomever is using CD to copy films and music instead of robbing me for using my own data", which was materially unfeasible. It took a lot of restraint to see that it was the a good possible middle ground, especially when funding public policies instead of being reversed to a few "big names" production houses.

 

[Ryujin]

OK, I was just typing out a long-winded response, but some of this is bordering on the silly. I'm out.