Disney sues Midjourney

[overgeeked]

Man I hate to break it to you...

It’s almost weird how they all seem to start exactly where he doesn’t want them to end up.

 

[Bohandas]

edit: oops double post

 

[Bohandas]

let me ask you this, do you plan to keep working till you die? Or would you rather retire and work on RPG related stuff? If you had an actual choice that is.

I never had a dream job growing up, I never wanted to be anything in particular.

In retrospect I've realized that I do have a dream job. I want to be in charge of a large company that I don't like so that I can deliberately run it into the ground. Possibly by creating an unsustainable price war that takes some of the competitors out as well and ultimately benefits the common man by driving deflation.

It’s almost weird how they all seem to start exactly where he doesn’t want them to end up.

The internet didn't start that way. In the 1990's to early 2000's it was a wonderland of smut, piracy, openly swearing at people, art that expressed emotions other than avarice, and a handful of mostly unprofitable businesses that mostly went belly up during the dot com crash.

 

[Scribe]

In retrospect I've realized that I do have a dream job. I want to be in charge of a large company that I don't like so that I can deliberately run it into the ground. Possibly by creating an unsustainable price war that takes some of the competitors out as well and ultimately benefits the common man by driving deflation.

The internet didn't start that way. In the 1990's to early 2000's it was a wonderland of smut, piracy, openly swearing at people, art that expressed emotions other than avarice, and a handful of mostly unprofitable businesses that mostly went belly up during the dot com crash.

Yeah, we could have stuck with dial up with no investment of capital, I guess.

 

[Wolfram stout]

Yeah, we could have stuck with dial up with no investment of capital, I guess.

I for one miss they sound of the dialing up screeching sound and either getting kicked offline if someone called you or plugging the modem into the main jack so no one could call in. Esp with a roommate that could easily spend 80 percent of his waking hours online.

 

[Umbran]

I've said some utopian things here but even I have my limits

Also, are you imagining factories?

I don't see how it matters where the manufacture happens.

 

[Umbran]

Why should legal systems need to "catch up" to every new technology?

Because humans have shown that, without regulation, too many of us are jerks enough to use tech in ways that do significant harm.

 

[Morrus]

In retrospect I've realized that I do have a dream job. I want to be in charge of a large company that I don't like so that I can deliberately run it into the ground.

This seems unnecessarily vindictive.

 

[trappedslider]

Because humans have shown that, without regulation, too many of us are jerks enough to use tech in ways that do significant harm.

even with regulations that still happens....but not as badly

 

[FrogReaver]

Let me restate this. If there are zero legal repercussions for those collecting copyrighted material, there is no deterrent on those collecting copyrighted material to make sure the models they train on that material aren't misused. And by misused, I mean used outside the boundaries of Fair Use.

Does it make sense now?

It doesn’t make sense and is not true. I already pointed to one alternative deterrent, by holding end users accountable for produced copyrighted works that will incentivize end users to not use ai’s that produce copyrighted works, essentially lowering the demand, making them less profitable than those that don’t produce copyrighted works. (Or derivatives of them).

Again, please refer to the real world issue with Studio Ghibli a few months back, that while there currently legal systems have not caught up to AI for widespread style copying, that doesn't mean this isn't something that moving forward shouldn't be protected. The law often lags behind activities-that-should-be-crimes made possible by technology.

IMO It’s not clear that the ai using copyrighted works should be a crime instead of fair use. It is 100% clear that an end user shouldn’t produce copyrighted images in any manner (except fair use).

Again, the end user doesn't have the training material and can produce copyrighted material without knowing it.

and that risk alone should prevent the end user from using an ai that can do that.

The enforcement cannot be on that side, or cannot be solely on that side. There must be provisions in place that if material is collected for Fair Use, it is ONLY used for Fair Use. And that means deterrent needs to affect the collector.

Why? Xerox isn’t liable if a user reproduces a copyrighted image without knowledge.

I'm going to assume that since you suggested and are defending it, that you understand what fair use is. Let me remind others:

Fair use is a legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, primarily for purposes like criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Can you explain how you see that 'a lot of the duplication' is for the purpose of 'criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research'?

Because I don't see that, especially among generative AI used for art.

I believe there’s also fair use for a transformational purpose. That would seem to be what using that material in creation of the ai accomplishes. But fair use is tricky to navigate.