Truly as far as I know there is no case law for this to date.
I thought about this for a while but I have no clue what the current direction is.
Essentially stealing data and putting them in datasets is illegal. AI models might be illegal, if the court considers them legally functionally the same. But if they don’t, they could meet any number of new legal definitions and that gets us back to “idk”. What is funny is because you would technically do the same copyright infringement that the AI companies do (if it gets ruled that way), these companies are essentially arguing for you, and so you could ride on the coat tails of corpo lawyers.
how can a model commit copyright infringement if the work it does generates no rights?
i’m not (just) being a smartass, it feels like this is the rub in the legal issue. when you create something, you have an implicity copyright to it (according to my sister who did her law school internships at IP law firms. she now works in medicine so it looks like law school did her some good) so claiming even an implicit copyright on someone else’s work infringes on the (maybe implicit, maybe explicit) copyright their work has. Which is why you have to transform it, not just imitate it.
Look at Huey Lewis and Ray Parker Jr. Huey Lewis and the News made I Want a New Drug. Ray Parker Jr made Ghostbusters. What makes them distinct songs (and keeps Ghostbusters from being a pale imitation) is that Ray Parker Jr added a bridge and put a hook of his own in it. I’ve yet to hear AI music that has any hooks that weren’t directly lifted from other artists. quite simply it lacks soul. AI could not have (and still can’t) turned I Want A New Drug into Ghostbusters.
I feel like an AI company might argue that generative AI is so transformative in the math aspect that it’s transformative even if it gives you an exact copy of a copy written work. Which would be silly, but we in uncharted times and the laws are dumb.
Not only this, I am increasingly under the impression the abrupt change of direction under trump has a paralyzing effect on all branches of government. And it’s good when they use this time to isolate his policies from most of the country. But it’s bad when our legal branch stops doing lots of normal law things.
Truly as far as I know there is no case law for this to date.
I thought about this for a while but I have no clue what the current direction is.
Essentially stealing data and putting them in datasets is illegal. AI models might be illegal, if the court considers them legally functionally the same. But if they don’t, they could meet any number of new legal definitions and that gets us back to “idk”. What is funny is because you would technically do the same copyright infringement that the AI companies do (if it gets ruled that way), these companies are essentially arguing for you, and so you could ride on the coat tails of corpo lawyers.
But yeah, it’s complicated.
how can a model commit copyright infringement if the work it does generates no rights?
i’m not (just) being a smartass, it feels like this is the rub in the legal issue. when you create something, you have an implicity copyright to it (according to my sister who did her law school internships at IP law firms. she now works in medicine so it looks like law school did her some good) so claiming even an implicit copyright on someone else’s work infringes on the (maybe implicit, maybe explicit) copyright their work has. Which is why you have to transform it, not just imitate it.
Look at Huey Lewis and Ray Parker Jr. Huey Lewis and the News made I Want a New Drug. Ray Parker Jr made Ghostbusters. What makes them distinct songs (and keeps Ghostbusters from being a pale imitation) is that Ray Parker Jr added a bridge and put a hook of his own in it. I’ve yet to hear AI music that has any hooks that weren’t directly lifted from other artists. quite simply it lacks soul. AI could not have (and still can’t) turned I Want A New Drug into Ghostbusters.
In the following essay I will discuss
I feel like an AI company might argue that generative AI is so transformative in the math aspect that it’s transformative even if it gives you an exact copy of a copy written work. Which would be silly, but we in uncharted times and the laws are dumb.
So, if I were to do a bad re-encode, the result would be copyright-free?
Or not, because I didn’t pass it through AI?
Truly dumb laws.
expecting government to never do silly things is pretty silly, you goose
deleted by creator
Lawmakers are still reeling from the invention of the internet, they have no hope of deciding how A.I. should work within the next decade
Not only this, I am increasingly under the impression the abrupt change of direction under trump has a paralyzing effect on all branches of government. And it’s good when they use this time to isolate his policies from most of the country. But it’s bad when our legal branch stops doing lots of normal law things.