Disney sues Midjourney

[Umbran]

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

And the regulations mean that those harmed have a framework for legal recourse.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

So let's break this down in simple steps.

Derek buys a photocopying machine. Derek takes an images that Derek has chosen to photocopy, and then Derek has reproduced that exact image.
The machine is simply reproducing exactly what a user request. Derek knows what the original image is. Derek knows how he got the original image. Derek knows how he will use the reproduced image.

Now, take Chad. Chad asks an AI to generate an image. Chad did not provide any images at all. Chad has no information about how the AI will make the image, including whether or not the AI is using copyrighted work (it is effectively a black box for Chad). Chad will not know if the resultant image violates copyright, because ... and this is important ... Chad did not generate the image in any meaningful way.

Without going into the legal explanations, do you see why this is not the same scenario as a photocopying machine? With a photocopy, the user supplies the source image, and the result is an exact duplicate. Which means that the user knows if what they are photocopying is their own drawing, or the 5e24 PHB. And then the user determines what they will do with the result knowing what the original source material they put into it was, and that the output is an actual copy (which obviously isn't a derivative work).

 

[MoonSong]

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

Xerox isn't handling the end user the media to be copied.

 

[FrogReaver]

Xerox isn't handling the end user the media to be copied.

Doesn’t matter if AI doing that portion is deemed Fair Use due to the transformative value.

 

[Umbran]

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).

Yeah, that's not gonna fly, because such enforcement is intractable, and also bad for the end users. We are approaching the point that every household in America can ask a generative AI to create an all-new Kung Fu Panda movie each night. Enforcement would require tracking that use by the end-user - which you'd probably call an invasion of your privacy! Moreover, it would entail suing each individual user for copyright infringement, which the courts simply couldn't support in terms of sheer volume.

So, you sue the company that makes the machine that enables that use instead.

IMO It’s not clear that the ai using copyrighted works should be a crime instead of fair use.

In an outright legal sense, it is not clear, as it hasn't been put into legislation, nor fully put through the courts yet. It probably won't really be clear for years.

Until then, folks get to have their opinions.

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

Does the phrase, "aiding and abetting" mean anything to you?

Interesting that you bring up Xerox. Xerox machines came to market in 1959. Were you aware that starting almost immediately after their introduction, they were challenged in a slew of lawsuits for copyright infringement? Most importantly by academic publishers - making Xerox copies of journal articles was cutting into their profits.

The lawsuits kept coming until the Copyright Act of 1976. That law doesn't have a carve-out for copy machines. It redefined Fair Use, making clear that making some types of copies for academic use was Fair Use, and the lawsuits stopped.

Again, it isn't that there's protection for copy technology in the law - fair use is defined such that typical office photocopiers are not usually an economical way to violate copyright on a scale large enough to matter. If Xerox decided to make a copier designed instead to economically copy and bind academic textbooks so that students could buy them cheap from their schools, and publisher revenue dropped, you'd see Xerox in the crosshairs.

 

[MoonSong]

Which means that the user knows if what they are photocopying is their own drawing, or the 5e24 PHB.

Though if I photocopy my own OG 5e PHB, bind it and use that copy in the table in order to preserve the original book (after all, WotC isn't making nor selling any more of them) that might be fair use.

 

[Umbran]

Doesn’t matter if AI doing that portion is deemed Fair Use due to the transformative value.

Again - do you want the company that makes the AI to log every prompt it is given, and hand them over to content publishers to vet for whether your use infringed?

 

[FrogReaver]

Again - do you want the company that makes the AI to log every prompt it is given, and hand them over to content publishers to vet for whether your use infringed?

Show why that’s a necessity in this scenario. Else it’s just wishful thinking.

 

[Umbran]

Though if I photocopy my own OG 5e PHB, bind it and use that copy in the table in order to preserve the original book (after all, WotC isn't making nor selling any more of them) that might be fair use.

Copies of something you already legally purchased, for your own personal use, are usually considered fair.

 

[MoonSong]

Copies of something you already legally purchased, for your own personal use, are usually considered fair.

Particularly because the copyright holder isn't selling more of them so they cause no monetary harm. (And given the track record, they won't)