Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipEnglish
    7·
    11 months ago

    “The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use”

    So selling fan fiction and fan-made game continuations and modifications should be legal?

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      52·
      11 months ago

      It should, but also that is significantly different from what an AI model is.

      It would be more like a list of facts and information about the structure of another work, and facts and patterns about lots of other similar works; and that list of facts can easily be used to create other, very similar works, but also it can be used to create entirely new works that follow patters from the other works.

      In as much as the model can be used to create infringing works -but is not one itself- makes this similar to other cases where a platform or tool can be used in infringing ways. In such cases, if the platform or tool is responsible for reasonable protections from such uses, then they aren’t held liable themselves. Think Youtube DMCA, Facebook content moderation, or even Google Books search. I think this is likely the way this goes; there is just too strong a case (with precedent) that the model is fair use.

    • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      11 months ago

      Not the OP, but yes it absolutely should. The idea you can legaly block someones creative expression because they are using elements of culture you have obtained a monopoly of is obscene.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipEnglish
        31·
        11 months ago

        I know it should. Only then we’d have no IP remaining. As it should be, the only case where it’s valid is punishing somebody impersonating the author or falsely claiming authorship, and that’s frankly just fraud.