Submitted 11 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world
I’ll lift a comment from techdirt:
“Let companies rip off your work, or else only Big Tech will be able to rip off your work”
Maybe we’re so far in capitalist hellholle that we simply consider everything to be for sale. What about GPL work that OpenAI steals? Or personal data?
Making only big companies able to “rip off your work” (not an accurate representation, but whatever) Is not the solution you think it is.
The only solution is to force all models trained on public data to not be covered by copyrights by default. Any output from those models should also by default be in the commons. The solution is to avoid copyright cartels, not strengthen them.
Interim solution would be to make all “AI” work public domain since it treats everything it trains on as public domain. I’m for it because it would make commercial use would immediately stop being profitable.
IMO, we need to ask: What benefits the people? or What is in the public interest?
That should be the only thing of importance. That’s probably controversial. Some will call it socialism. It is pretty much how the US Constitution sees it, though.
Maybe you agree with this. But when you talk about “models trained on public data” you are basically thinking in terms of property rights, and not in terms of the public benefit.
The models (ie the weights specifically) may not be copyrightable, anyways. There’s no copyright on the result of number crunching. Once the model is further fine-tuned, there might be copyright, but it’s still unlike anything covered by copyright in the past.
One analogy I have is a 3D engine. The engineers design the look of the typical output by setting parameters, but that does not create a specific copyright on the parameters. There’s copyright on the design documents, the code, the UI, if any and maybe other stuff. It’s not quite the same, though.
Some jurisdictions have IP on databases. I think that would cover AI models. If I am right, then that means that any license agreements that come with models are ineffective in the US.
However, to copy these models, you first need to get your hands on them. They are still trade secrets, so don’t on leaks.
It is missing one point: as a creator, I want to be able to forbid you from training on my creations. And the only tool that could enable that is the copyright enforcement over AI training.
Too bad. You can “forbid” all you want. Don’t mean shit. Vote for much stronger laws. By much stronger I mean no pay a fine and continue. I mean jail.
And I want a law making you pay me 500$ for reading your posts.
Copyright law already extends beyond what society finds reasonable. It’s routinely broken by normal people without them even thinking about it. It’s even broken by those vested in it both corporations and individual artists.
Finally you are not getting the copyright law you want ( nor should you, you a minority, a special interest ), big corps are. They might be ‘content’ corps or tech or both but they certainly won’t make a law to benefit either society as a whole or you as a small artist.
lol, if you want that, keep your pictures for you, else you had to forbid every human to look at your pictures and they could resamble your style
Watching you leap hard to the left to completely miss the point, followed by insulting the OP because you didn’t understand their post, is just the height of Internet buffoonery.
The main thing investors do with technology is find something free and make a product out of it. This time they flipped the script by stealing, and I want these companies and investors to face consequences. I don’t want all of humanity’s creative works that have ever been posted online to be repurposed and repackaged by a new technology and then sold.
Sure, that’s what they want. They want the backing of copyright strengthening from emotional reactions like yours so that the only ones able to do GenerativeAI is those big companies. They’re playing you.
I don’t want all of humanity’s creative works that have ever been posted online to be repurposed and repackaged by a new technology and then sold.
Me neither. But unless it’s the “by a new technology” part that really bothers you, this is a capitalism problem, not AI.
Finally some sane level headed coverage of AI copyright issues. Techdirt doesn’t miss.
If “big tech” can collapse, and it does. It will leave a power-void.
Will the fediverse win? It needs to if we have any chance at democratizing the internet.
I am just wondering how many of these artists took the Faustian bargain of producing xxx material - you get paid and people appreciate your work but you are banned from ever working a “serious” job in the art world. Then, image generation came and they lost all that money to imitators.
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I just hate copyright as a concept to begin with. Yes I want creators to own their own work and be able to profit from it…but that’s not even how it works now. Like 10 companies own all the popular IPs, many don’t even do anything with them. They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it. Fan fiction already exists and rarely do they get confused with the original. I’m not concerned about big companies stealing the little guys work because those big companies most of the time can’t even manage to make interesting concepts out of their existing work with the benefit of already owning the creations of thousands of artists.
All so Mickey Mouse could be covered under copyright for 100 fucking years.
nicetriangle@kbin.social 11 months ago
I think the big problem is the duration of copyright. That it's so much longer than patents is pretty hard to logically defend.
Womble@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yup, No one being able to produce a copy of something you created for a decade after it was first published - entirely reasonable.
People profiting off of artificial exclusivity 60 years after the author died 50 years after publishing a work - not reasonable.
anthoniix@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is the correct take. Copyright as a concept is just flawed, especially in a world where you can sell those ideas.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Not in my instance ;)
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 11 months ago
If you want this to be unpopular, then you need to point out some of the implications. Lemme…
This means, that those who think that AI training should require a license are not standing up for artists. They are shilling for intellectual property owners; for the corporations and rich people.
If it requires a license, that means that money must be paid to property owners simply because they are owners. The more someone owns, the more money they get. Rich people own the most property, so rich people get the most money.
And what do employees get? They get to pay.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
that’s never how it has worked. the statute of anne was written to stop 17th century london printers from breaking each others’ knees over who is allowed to publish long-dead shakespeare’s plays.