Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9305673" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>They should certainly move their training companies, if they want to make "profit" out of it, to places where it is allowed. If the US law determines that scraping the Internet to create a model is illegal, it doesn't follow that everything generated by the model is infringing copyright by itself (unless the US has a very extensive definition of derivative work, including one with 0 similarity to anything). In this case, it's only a matter of moving their webservice to some more AI-friendly place and sell the service from there to US customers. Costly and inconvenient, but I am pretty sure those greedy billion-dollars-making companies can afford it, it wouldn't be "world of hurt" level. Free software can easily move, also.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not certain it's technically feasible because the AI model learns concepts by examining several images, not learning, within each image, what combination of concepts it found. It would require actually storing a lot more data (compressing the whole database of image) which is radically different from what generative AI does. It would need to work like the less informed persons think generative AI work, by compressing each datapiece it was trained on. Plus, it would need to be able to identify derivate works, which there is little chance every juridiction will agree on the criteria. And even within a juridiction, judges are needed to decide on ambiguous case. So it would be difficult to train an engine to apply rules that can't be strictly determined. But if it was possible by just scraping, sure, what's the problem? Generalizing, it would be able to detect even unintentional breach of copyright (like someone drawing a mermaid and wanting to be sure it won't be sued by Disney before publishing). I can see it would be generally useful enough to be hosted by a public cultural institution as a public service, and under the TDM exception in the EU it wouldn't even need to respect opt-out in this case. It would be a great development, if it was feasible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Outside of fair use, the TDM exception in the EU (and other countries with similar provisions) provides for a specific exception to copyright, allowing specifically the training on data that is publicly available (with or without, depending on the cases, the possibility of an opt-out). I don't see anything new here: states use their resources to enforce a copyright-owner exclusive monopoly over works he created, and such effort has always been tied to counterparts: the monopoly is temporary (leading to the work entering public domain), the author can't forbid use in libraries, he can't forbid private copy for the use of the copymaker, it can't forbid excerpt for quotation purpose or satire, the author of a song can't prevent people from singing it in their shower and so on....Depending on your local laws, the list might be slightly different.</p><p></p><p>All these exceptions strive to achieve a balance between the greater good of having better-compensated artists (in the hope they will be prompted to create more and better art than in the period before copyright, where we had only Molière, Mozart, Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Botticelli, in a word, no real art being created because of that lack of copyright), better public access to art (hence the need for it to be revealed to the public one way or another, or a painter can't forbid people to paint copies of their works from a museum) and the cost of the public enforcement of the monopoly, that is borne by all taxpayers. Adding a new exception like "you can't forbid AI training" is just incorporating a new exception to improve the equilibrium for our times (or clarifying if it was considered that the legislative body didn't intend to include scraping as part of the monopoly granted to author in the first place, before scraping was a thing). And writing it in law instead of relying on precedent is just good practice to avoid the juridical uncertainty that seems to be plaguing the US right now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9305673, member: 42856"] They should certainly move their training companies, if they want to make "profit" out of it, to places where it is allowed. If the US law determines that scraping the Internet to create a model is illegal, it doesn't follow that everything generated by the model is infringing copyright by itself (unless the US has a very extensive definition of derivative work, including one with 0 similarity to anything). In this case, it's only a matter of moving their webservice to some more AI-friendly place and sell the service from there to US customers. Costly and inconvenient, but I am pretty sure those greedy billion-dollars-making companies can afford it, it wouldn't be "world of hurt" level. Free software can easily move, also. Not certain it's technically feasible because the AI model learns concepts by examining several images, not learning, within each image, what combination of concepts it found. It would require actually storing a lot more data (compressing the whole database of image) which is radically different from what generative AI does. It would need to work like the less informed persons think generative AI work, by compressing each datapiece it was trained on. Plus, it would need to be able to identify derivate works, which there is little chance every juridiction will agree on the criteria. And even within a juridiction, judges are needed to decide on ambiguous case. So it would be difficult to train an engine to apply rules that can't be strictly determined. But if it was possible by just scraping, sure, what's the problem? Generalizing, it would be able to detect even unintentional breach of copyright (like someone drawing a mermaid and wanting to be sure it won't be sued by Disney before publishing). I can see it would be generally useful enough to be hosted by a public cultural institution as a public service, and under the TDM exception in the EU it wouldn't even need to respect opt-out in this case. It would be a great development, if it was feasible. Outside of fair use, the TDM exception in the EU (and other countries with similar provisions) provides for a specific exception to copyright, allowing specifically the training on data that is publicly available (with or without, depending on the cases, the possibility of an opt-out). I don't see anything new here: states use their resources to enforce a copyright-owner exclusive monopoly over works he created, and such effort has always been tied to counterparts: the monopoly is temporary (leading to the work entering public domain), the author can't forbid use in libraries, he can't forbid private copy for the use of the copymaker, it can't forbid excerpt for quotation purpose or satire, the author of a song can't prevent people from singing it in their shower and so on....Depending on your local laws, the list might be slightly different. All these exceptions strive to achieve a balance between the greater good of having better-compensated artists (in the hope they will be prompted to create more and better art than in the period before copyright, where we had only Molière, Mozart, Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Botticelli, in a word, no real art being created because of that lack of copyright), better public access to art (hence the need for it to be revealed to the public one way or another, or a painter can't forbid people to paint copies of their works from a museum) and the cost of the public enforcement of the monopoly, that is borne by all taxpayers. Adding a new exception like "you can't forbid AI training" is just incorporating a new exception to improve the equilibrium for our times (or clarifying if it was considered that the legislative body didn't intend to include scraping as part of the monopoly granted to author in the first place, before scraping was a thing). And writing it in law instead of relying on precedent is just good practice to avoid the juridical uncertainty that seems to be plaguing the US right now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…
Top