transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder’s copyright.
You can use a book to train an AI model, you can’t sell a translation just because you used AI to translate it. These are two different things.
Collage is transformative, and it uses copyrighted pictures to make completely new works of art. It’s the same principle.
It’s also important to understand that it’s a tool. You can create copyright infringing content with word, google translate or photoshop as well. The training of the model itself doesn’t infringe on current copyright laws.
It uses the content in a different way for a different purpose. The part I highlighted above applies to it? Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.
Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.
I asked nicely to provide a quote that machine generation is also covered that you couldn’t provide and now feels the need to lash out.
And yes, I absolutely expect that machine generation is explicitly mentioned for the simple fact that right now machine generated anything is not copyrightable at all. A computer isn’t smart, a computer isn’t creative. Its output doesn’t pass the threshold of originality, as such there is no creative transformation happening, as there is with reinterpretations of songs.
What is copyrightable are the works that served as training set, therefore there absolutely has to be an explicit mention somewhere that machine generated works do not simply pass the original copyright into the generated work, just like how a human writes source code and the compiled executable is still the human author’s work.
In the Office’s view, training a generative AI foundation model on a large and diverse
dataset will often be transformative. The process converts a massive collection of training examples into a statistical model that can generate a wide range of outputs across a diverse array of new situations. It is hard to compare individual works in the training data—for example, copies of The Big Sleep in various languages—with a resulting language model capable of translating emails, correcting grammar, or answering natural language questions about 20th-century literature, without perceiving a transformation.
You can read the whole doc. The part above is cherry picked. I haven’t read through the whole thing but at a glance, the doc basically explains how it depends. If the model is trained specifically to output one piece content, it wouldn’t be acceptable.
The waters are muddy but holy fuck does taking the copyright juggernauts side sound bloody stupid.
You can use a book to train an AI model, you can’t sell a translation just because you used AI to translate it. These are two different things.
Collage is transformative, and it uses copyrighted pictures to make completely new works of art. It’s the same principle.
It’s also important to understand that it’s a tool. You can create copyright infringing content with word, google translate or photoshop as well. The training of the model itself doesn’t infringe on current copyright laws.
Not a single line in your comment offers anything that machine generation, which is not at all human creative work, falls under fair use.
It uses the content in a different way for a different purpose. The part I highlighted above applies to it? Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.
I asked nicely to provide a quote that machine generation is also covered that you couldn’t provide and now feels the need to lash out.
And yes, I absolutely expect that machine generation is explicitly mentioned for the simple fact that right now machine generated anything is not copyrightable at all. A computer isn’t smart, a computer isn’t creative. Its output doesn’t pass the threshold of originality, as such there is no creative transformation happening, as there is with reinterpretations of songs.
What is copyrightable are the works that served as training set, therefore there absolutely has to be an explicit mention somewhere that machine generated works do not simply pass the original copyright into the generated work, just like how a human writes source code and the compiled executable is still the human author’s work.
Edit: Downvotes instead of arguments. Pathetic.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf
You can read the whole doc. The part above is cherry picked. I haven’t read through the whole thing but at a glance, the doc basically explains how it depends. If the model is trained specifically to output one piece content, it wouldn’t be acceptable.
The waters are muddy but holy fuck does taking the copyright juggernauts side sound bloody stupid.