Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9314759" data-attributes="member: 177">Legally speaking, yes, it is intrinsically different.&nbsp; I'll get to that in a second.Sure.&nbsp; It isn't like human artists' work never infringe - the whole idea of infringement predates computers by centuries!&nbsp; The line between infringing product, and not, is a fuzzy one, and you have to start making weird &quot;points of similarity&quot; arguments to decide which side of the line a work is on.&nbsp; However, we may not need this to make a case against current generative AI.You're looking at the wrong end of the animal.&nbsp; Don't look at the output.&nbsp; Look at the input.The first (and possibly best) legal argument here has nothing to do with the details of the end product.&nbsp; And the music industry, in trying to kill Napster, did the heavy lifting for us already.&nbsp; And it is this:&nbsp; making an unauthorized digital copy of an artwork is considered copyright infringement.&nbsp; And, long before the generative AI makes any product, even before it is trained, the folks trying to train it must make digital copies of the artworks to include them in the training set.This is specifically why most of the early generative AIs were presented to the public &quot;for academic use&quot; - because academic use is usually covered by Fair Use doctrine, so that the training copy could be overlooked.&nbsp; It is this act - scraping the internet and making digital copies of works as parts of the training set, that is a problem.&nbsp; Again, just pay the darned artists, and this goes away.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9314759, member: 177"] Legally speaking, yes, it is intrinsically different. I'll get to that in a second. Sure. It isn't like human artists' work [I]never[/I] infringe - the whole idea of infringement predates computers by centuries! The line between infringing product, and not, is a fuzzy one, and you have to start making weird "points of similarity" arguments to decide which side of the line a work is on. However, we may not need this to make a case against current generative AI. You're looking at the wrong end of the animal. Don't look at the output. Look at the input. The first (and possibly best) legal argument here has nothing to do with the details of the end product. And the music industry, in trying to kill Napster, did the heavy lifting for us already. And it is this: making an unauthorized digital copy of an artwork is considered copyright infringement. And, long before the generative AI makes any product, even before it is trained, the folks trying to train it must [I]make digital copies[/I] of the artworks to include them in the training set. This is [I]specifically[/I] why most of the early generative AIs were presented to the public "for academic use" - because academic use is usually covered by Fair Use doctrine, so that the training copy could be overlooked. It is this act - scraping the internet and making digital copies of works as parts of the training set, that is a problem. Again, just pay the darned artists, and this goes away. [/QUOTE]

Verification