Disney sues Midjourney

[FrogReaver]

There’s another solution as well. Amend ‘fair use doctrine by judicial interpretation to include all content used to train AI and put the onus on the users of AI to not reproduce copyrighted works with it’.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There’s another solution as well. Amend ‘fair use doctrine by judicial interpretation to include all content used to train AI and put the onus on the users of AI to not reproduce copyrighted works with it’.

Or they could declare that property is theft and anyone could come into your house and take your stuff.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or they could declare that property is theft and anyone could come into your house and take your stuff.

Not sure your point?

 

[Reynard]

There’s another solution as well. Amend ‘fair use doctrine by judicial interpretation to include all content used to train AI and put the onus on the users of AI to not reproduce copyrighted works with it’.

Given the current situation, I think the opposite is more likely.

I want to be clear: that would be a travesty.

But in the era of tech oligarchy, I would not be the least surprised to see an interpretation of Fair Use that essentially gave AI companies carte blanch with scrapable data.

 

[Morrus]

But in the era of tech oligarchy, I would not be the least surprised to see an interpretation of Fair Use that essentially gave AI companies carte blanch with scrapable data.

As this thread shows, the Disneys of the world will never let that happen.

And we’re not talking just Disney (though that is powerful enough on its own). We’re talking every movie studio, music label, TV network, publishing company, news outlet globally. Disney, Universal, Sony, Paramount, the Murdoch empire, the BBC, everyone. And guess who controls the message? It’s the media companies.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Can't believe I'm saying this ... but I'm rooting for the House of Mouse.

 

[Umbran]

Building a system for identifying, contacting, negotiating with and ultimately paying copyright holders would certainly not be "easy."

Licensing work for various uses is pretty standard stuff. Published authors have agents who handle these things all the time, for example - there is nothing conceptually new here. The only new thing is the scale. But we are talking about the biggest tech companies on the planet - I'm pretty sure they can work something out, if they want it bad enough.

And if not, then we can still have humans writing stuff. Not really a loss.

Admittedly, that won't help them pay for random stuff they scrape off the internet, but since doing that is leading to failure of LLMs (because the internet is already contaminated with LLM output, and training a generative AI on the output of a generative AI causes problems), they probably need to stop doing that anyway.

Determining how royalties would work would be equally complex: what portion of the training data from any given source contributed to any given output is a hard question.

Two words: flat fee.

 

[trappedslider]

A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books without authors' permission | TechCrunch

The ruling isn't a guarantee for how similar cases will proceed, but it lays the foundations for a precedent that would side with tech companies over creatives.

techcrunch.com

Looks like on this ruling using books is fair use,but the method of how they got the books is going to trial.

 

[Staffan]

A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books without authors' permission | TechCrunch

The ruling isn't a guarantee for how similar cases will proceed, but it lays the foundations for a precedent that would side with tech companies over creatives.

techcrunch.com

Looks like on this ruling using books is fair use,but the method of how they got the books is going to trial.

That is an odd ruling. To me it seems like if you could train an AI on legally acquired material, you should also be able to do a lot of other things with legally acquired material. AFAIK, copyright law would not allow you to make a movie featuring art on a poster you bought, or text from a book you own, or music from a CD that's yours, and to me this seems like the same thing. Now, I'm of the opinion that you should be able to do those things, at least in an incidental way (just like I don't have to pay Harder & Steenbeck every time I post a photo of a miniature I painted with an airbrush they made), but the law doesn't agree with me.

 

[trappedslider]

That is an odd ruling. To me it seems like if you could train an AI on legally acquired material, you should also be able to do a lot of other things with legally acquired material. AFAIK, copyright law would not allow you to make a movie featuring art on a poster you bought, or text from a book you own, or music from a CD that's yours, and to me this seems like the same thing. Now, I'm of the opinion that you should be able to do those things, at least in an incidental way (just like I don't have to pay Harder & Steenbeck every time I post a photo of a miniature I painted with an airbrush they made), but the law doesn't agree with me.

It's ruling that Training the AI on the materials is covered by fair use.

From the article: Fair use rulings take into account what the work is being used for (parody and education can be viable), whether it’s being reproduced for commercial gain (you can write “Star Wars” fan fiction, but you can’t sell it), and how transformative a derivative work is from the original.