[HN Gopher] An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a h...
___________________________________________________________________
An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a
bullwhip
Author : participant3
Score : 361 points
Date : 2025-04-03 17:55 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many
| human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to
| create new IP.
|
| If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an
| infringing work product is _generated_ (or regurgitated, or
| whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is
| trained. It 's when the output is used commercially -- _by a
| human_ -- that the liability should rightfully attach.
|
| And it should attach to the human, not the tool.
| khelavastr wrote:
| Right! AI developers and directors should be culpable for
| infringement as part of their duties to larger organizations.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Is that really a good-faith rejoinder to the point I'm
| making?
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Assuming you can identify it's someone else's IP. Clearly these
| are hugely contrived examples, but what about text or code that
| you might not be as familiar with?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It doesn't matter. Sue whoever uses it commercially.
|
| If you insist on making it about the model, you will wreck
| something wonderful.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Ah, so don't use the outputs of an LLM commercially?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| That, or get sued.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| If it "may" violate copyright, correct!
| alabastervlog wrote:
| https://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
|
| Given enough time (... a surprisingly short amount) and
| enough people creating art (say, about as many as we have had
| for the last couple hundred years) and indefinitely-long-
| lived recording, plus very-long copyright terms, the
| inevitable result is that it's functionally impossible to
| create anything within the space of "things people like"
| that's not violating copyright, for any but the strictest
| definitions of what constitutes copying.
|
| The short story treats of music, but it's easy to see how
| visual arts and fiction-writing and the rest get at least
| _extremely crowded_ in short order under those circumstances.
| timewizard wrote:
| >> "a photo image of an intergalactic hunter who comes to earth
| in search of big game."
|
| I can literally imagine hundreds of things that are true to
| this description but entirely distinct from "Predator."
|
| > used commercially
|
| Isn't that what these AI companies are doing? Charging you for
| access to this?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Does their ToS say anywhere that they will come to defend you
| if you get sued for using their images?
|
| (Because proper stock agencies offer those kind of
| protections. If OpenAI doesn't, then don't use them as a
| replacement to a stock agency.)
| Carrok wrote:
| > It's just doing what many human artists would do
|
| I really don't think so. If I paid a human artist to make the
| prompt in the title, and I didn't explicitly say "Indiana
| Jones" I would think it should be fairly obvious to the human
| artist that I do _not_ want Indiana Jones. If they gave me back
| a picture of, clearly, Indiana Jones, I would ask them why they
| didn't create something original.
| derektank wrote:
| I actually don't think it would be obvious. By not explicitly
| saying Indiana Jones when so obviously describing Indiana
| Jones, there is an implication present. But I think many
| human artists would probably ask you, "Wait, so Indiana
| Jones, or are you looking for something different," before
| immediately diving in.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| So why didn't the AI ask for clarification?
| fkyoureadthedoc wrote:
| Because it wasn't prompted to? Have you not ever used
| ChatGPT?
| runarberg wrote:
| I'm not so sure, unless you are playing a game of "name the
| character" you generally _don't_ want Indiana Jones unless
| you explicitly mention Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is a
| well known character, if you want a picture of Indiana
| Jones it is simple enough to just say: "Draw me a picture
| of Indiana Jones". The fact that they didn't say that, most
| likely means they don't want that.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| This seems pretty easy to test - can we just change the
| prompt to specifically exclude Indiana Jones?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Meta-comment: the use of Indiana Jones, a character that was
| a very intentional throwback to the "Pulp hero explorer" from
| the childhoods of its creators, in this example to ponder how
| one would get "Indiana Jones without Indiana Jones" is quite
| humorous in its own right.
|
| Indiana Jones is already a successful permutation of that
| approach. He's Zorro, Rick Blaine, and Christopher Leiningen
| mashed together with their serial numbers filed off.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I agree. But massive changes in scale or leverage can undermine
| this type of principled stand.
|
| One death is a murder; 100k deaths is a war or a pandemic. One
| piece of chewing gum on the ground will get you a caning in
| Singapore; when everyone does it, that's NYC.
|
| Up until now, one had to have some level of graphical or
| artistic skills to do this, but not anymore. Again, I agree
| that it attaches to the human...but we now have many more
| humans to attach it to.
| axus wrote:
| Don't worry, the lawsuit will name a corporation that made it,
| not the AI tool.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| > It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're
| not explicitly being paid to create new IP.
|
| It isn't an independent human. It is a service paid for by
| customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user,
| the image has thus been used commercially.
|
| In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in
| order to infringe copyright.
|
| And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce copies
| unless they are demonstrating mastery of technique or
| expressing adoration. And if it happens spontaneously, they are
| then frustrated and try to defend themselves by claiming to
| never have even experienced the original material. (As happens
| with simplistic, but popular musical riffs.) But AI explicitly
| is trained on every material it can get its hands on and so
| cannot make such a defense.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| If I pay you to tell me the plot of Indiana Jones, privately,
| because I don't have time to watch it, and you agree, did you
| violate copyright laws?
|
| If you do it for free, is it different?
|
| If I ask a friend to draw me as Indiana Jones? Or pay an
| artist? In either case I just want that picture to put in my
| rec room, not to sell.
| Electricniko wrote:
| OpenAI is currently valued at $300 billion, and their
| product is largely based on copying the copyrighted works
| of others, who weren't paid by OpenAI. It's a bit
| (exponentially) different from a "me and you" example.
| eMPee584 wrote:
| It's not copying - it's assimilating..
| chimpanzee wrote:
| Summarization is generally _not_ copyright infringement.
|
| Private copying and transference, even once for a friend,
| _is_ copyright infringement.
|
| I don't necessarily agree with this, but it is true
| nonetheless.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| "Private copying and transference, even once for a
| friend, is copyright infringement."
|
| Not without money or equivalent trade involved.
|
| I can draw Mickey Mouse all day on my notebook, and hand
| it to you; no legal issues.
|
| If I charge you a pack of bubble gum - Disney's lawyers
| will kick my door down and serve me notice.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| > Not without money or equivalent trade involved.
|
| This isn't generally true. The copyright holder need only
| claim that the value of their copyrighted work or the
| profits received by its distribution has been reduced or
| lost. I'm not sure they even need to make such a claim,
| as courts have already determined that commerciality
| isn't a requirement for infringement. It's a matter of
| unauthorized use, distribution or reproduction, not
| trade.
|
| They of course will likely never know and might not
| bother to litigate given the private and uncommercial
| nature, but they still have the right to do so.
|
| They would weigh the financial and reputational cost of
| litigating against children sharing images and decide not
| to. Of course if one had 10000 friends and provided this
| service to them in a visible manner, then they'd probably
| come knocking.
| cycomanic wrote:
| IANAL, but my understanding is that it's more complicated
| than this. Generally commercial benefits (i.e. taking
| money) is one of the aspects being taken into
| consideration to decide if something is fair use, but
| it's not the only one and not making a
| monetary/commercial benefit does not guarantee that work
| is considered fair use (which is the exception we're
| talking about here).
| prerok wrote:
| Not true. There were many cease and desist orders for
| fanfiction, which was intended as open source.
| cycomanic wrote:
| The answer is yes? The person doing the drawing is
| violating copyright. I don't know why that is even a
| controversial question.
|
| You are asking the equivalent question of, if I put a
| pirated copy of windows on my PC that I only use privately
| at home am I violating copyright, or if I sell copies of
| music for people to only listen to in their own home.
|
| But this is even more damning, this is a commercial service
| that is reproducing the copyrighted work.
|
| Edit: Just to clarify to people who reflexively downvote.
| I'm making a statement of what is it not a value judgement.
| And yes there is fair use, but that's an exemption from the
| rule that it is a copyright violation.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human --
| that the liability should rightfully attach.
|
| I am paying OpenAI. So they are producing these copyrighted
| works and giving them to me for their own commercial benefit.
| Normally that's illegal. But somehow not when you're just doing
| it en masse.
| mppm wrote:
| > What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many
| human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to
| create new IP.
|
| Not really? Why would a human artist create a faithful
| reproduction of Indiana Jones when asked to paint an
| archeologist? And besides, if they did, it would be considered
| clear IP infringement if the result were used commercially.
|
| > If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when
| an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or
| whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is
| trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a
| human -- that the liability should rightfully attach.
|
| I agree. Release groups, torrent sites and seedbox operators
| should not be wrongly accused of pirating movies. Piracy only
| occurs in the act of actually watching a movie without paying,
| and should not be prosecuted without definitive proof of such
| (!_!)
| whycome wrote:
| > if they did, it would be considered clear IP infringement
| if the result were used commercially.
|
| Isn't that exactly what OP is saying?
| timewizard wrote:
| > Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder
| that AI is getting better at copying and closer to
|
| I completely disagree. It's not getting "better." It always just
| copied. That's all it /can/ do. How anyone expected novel outputs
| from this technology is beyond me.
|
| It's highly noticeable if you do a minimal analysis, but all
| modern "AI" tools are just copyright thiefs. They're just there
| to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone
| else's content.
| jMyles wrote:
| > It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all
| it /can/ do
|
| That's true of all the best artists ever.
|
| > They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly
| stealing someone else's content.
|
| That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a
| legal fiction invented to give states more control over
| creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is
| a "thief". To be a thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my
| house and steal something.
|
| When someone copies or remixes my music, I'm often not even
| aware that it has occurred. It's hard to imagine how that can
| be cast as genuine theft.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| OK, you're plunging deep into the ethos of IP piracy, and
| staking your claim that "None exists." If that is deemed
| TRUE, then there's nothing to ever discuss about AI... or
| animated pornography where a well-known big-eared mouse bangs
| a Kryptonian orphan wearing a cape.
|
| The reality of our current international laws, going back
| centuries, disagrees. And most artists disagree.
| jMyles wrote:
| > The reality of our current international laws, going back
| centuries, disagrees
|
| Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there been
| _international_ laws regarding intellectual property for
| centuries?!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there
| been _international_ laws regarding intellectual property
| for centuries?!
|
| AFAICT, the first major international IP treaties were in
| the 1880s (the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property
| Rights in 1883 and the Berne Convention covering
| copyrights in 1886; so only ~140 years.)
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction [...] To be a
| thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my house and steal
| something._
|
| That's just a legal fiction invented so people can pretend to
| own physical objects even though we should all know that in
| this world you can never truly _own_ anything.
|
| _Everything_ we do or protect is made up. You 've just drawn
| the arbitrary line in the sand as to what can be "owned" in a
| different place than where other people might draw it.
| jMyles wrote:
| Well, one rudimentary difference is that bytes can be (and
| seem wont to be) copied, whereas if you steal my jeans, I'm
| standing there in my underwear.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > That's true of all the best artists ever.
|
| Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, why should we
| require human artists to be held to the same standards as
| automated software? We can make whatever rules we want to.
|
| A human might implicitly copy, but they are not infinitely
| scalable. If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz
| Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an
| always-available computer program with a marginal cost of
| zero.
| jMyles wrote:
| > why should we require human artists to be held to the
| same standards as automated software?
|
| Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow
| general purpose computing?" If the technology of our age is
| our birthright, don't we have the right to engage whatever
| mathematics we find inspiring with its aid?
|
| > If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz
| Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an
| always-available computer program with a marginal cost of
| zero.
|
| ...that sounds like a good argument in favor of the always-
| available computer program.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give
| states more control over creativity.
|
| Ownership is a legal fiction invented because it is perceived
| to encourage behavior that is seen as desirable; this is no
| more true of ownership of intellectual property or other
| intangible personal property than it is of tangible personal
| property or real estate.
| ls612 wrote:
| He has a point that in a society with strong legal
| protections on freedom of expression, copyright is one of
| the main tools the state has to stop expression that is
| deleterious to the ruling class.
| flenserboy wrote:
| the guardrails are probably going to end up being way too close
| together when the dust settles -- imagine if something as simple
| as "young wizard" would be enough to trip the warnings. someone
| could be looking to do an image from Feist's early novels, or of
| their own work, & that will be verboten. it may turn out that
| we're facing the strongest copyright holders being able to limit
| everyone's legitimate use of these tools.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I would expect "young wizard" to generate something similar to
| Harry Potter more than Pug, tbh
| prerok wrote:
| That's exactly what they meant.
| foxglacier wrote:
| Unless it can exclude the copyright outputs and provide
| something else instead of blocking the inputs. I'm sure there's
| AI that can check if a picture is close enough to something in
| their database of copyrighted characters built up from some
| kind of DMCA-like process of copyright holders submitting
| examples of their work to be blocked.
| prerok wrote:
| Indeed, but where does it stop? Looks like Potter? No go.
| Hmm, looks like an illustration of Pug? No go. Looks like
| Simon the sorcerer. No go. Hmm, looks like a wizard from
| Infocom's Sorcers get all the girls. No go.
|
| The problem is that it regurgitates what already exists and
| if you really want to abide by all the permissions then there
| is nothing left.
| burnished wrote:
| Oooh those guardrails make me angry. I get why they are there
| (dont poke the bear) but it doesn't make me overlook the self
| serving hypocrisy involved.
|
| Though I am also generally opposed to the notion of intellectual
| property whatsoever on the basis that it doesn't seem to serve
| its intended purpose and what good could be salvaged from its
| various systems can already be well represented with other
| existing legal concepts, i.e deceptive behaviors being prosecuted
| as forms of fraud.
| teddyh wrote:
| The _problem_ is people at large companies creating these AI
| models, wanting the freedom to copy artists' works when using
| it, but these large companies _also_ want to keep copyright
| protection intact, for their regular business activities. They
| want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for
| essentially eliminating copyright for _their_ specific purpose
| and convenience, when copyright has virtually never been
| loosened for the public's convenience, even when the exceptions
| the public asks for are often minor and laudable. If these
| companies were to argue that copyright should be _eliminated_
| because of this new technology, I might not object. But now
| that they come and ask... no, they _pretend to already have_ ,
| a copyright exception for their specific use, I will _happily_
| turn around and use their own copyright maximalist arguments
| against them.
|
| (Copied from a comment of mine written more than three years
| ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33582047>)
| ToValueFunfetti wrote:
| I don't care for this line of argument. It's like saying you
| can't hold a position that trespassing should be illegal
| while also holding that commercial businesses should be
| legally required to have public restrooms. Yes, both of these
| positions are related to land rights and the former is pro-
| while the latter is anti-, but it's a perfectly coherent set
| of positions. OpenAI can absolutely be anti-copyright in the
| sense of whether you can train an an NN on copyrighted data
| and pro-copyright in the sense of whether you can make an
| exact replica of some data and sell it as your own without
| making it into hypocrisy territory. It does suggest they're
| self-interested, but you have to climb a mountain in Tibet to
| find anybody who isn't.
|
| Arguments that make a case that NN training is copyright
| violation are much more compelling to me than this.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| No, the exception they are asking for (we can train on
| copyrighted material and the image produced is non-
| copyright infringing) is copyright infringing in the most
| basic sense.
|
| I'll prove it by induction: Imagine that I have a service
| where I "train" a model on a single image of Indiana Jones.
| Now you prompt it, and my model "generates" the same image.
| I sell you this service, and no money goes to the copyright
| holder of the original image. This is obviously
| infringment.
|
| There's no reason why training on a billion images is any
| different, besides the fact that the lines are blurred by
| the model weights not being parseable
| slidehero wrote:
| >There's no reason why training on a billion images is
| any different
|
| You gloss over this as if it's a given. I don't agree. I
| think you're doing a different thing when you're sampling
| billions of things equallly.
| belorn wrote:
| The example you gave with public restroom do not work
| because of two main concept: They are usually getting paid
| for it by the government, and operating a company usually
| holds benefits given by the government. Industry
| regulations as a concept is generally justified in that
| industry are getting "something" from society, and thus
| society can put in requirements in return.
|
| A regulation that require restaurants to have a public
| bathroom is more akin to regulation that also require
| restaurants to check id when selling alcohol to young
| customers. Neither requirement has any relation with land
| rights, but is related to the right of operating a company
| that sell food to the public.
| jofla_net wrote:
| I guess the best explanation for what we're witnessing is the
| notion that 'Money Talks', and sadly nothing more. To think
| thats all that fair use activists lacked in years passed..
| MgB2 wrote:
| Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the
| training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a
| severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational
| model that just regurgitates the input?
|
| I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of
| their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with
| something that at least feels new.
|
| In the end, other than for copyright-washing, why wouldn't I just
| use the original movie still/photo in the first place?
| stevage wrote:
| Why? For fan content, using the original characters in new
| situations, mashups, new styles etc.
| o11c wrote:
| It's not a single image though. Stitching 3 or so input images
| together clearly makes copyright laundering legal.
| gertlex wrote:
| What if the word "generic" were added to a lot of these image
| prompts? "generic image of an intergalactic bounty hunter from
| space" etc.
|
| Certainly there's an aspect of people using the chat interface
| like they use google: describe xyz to try to surface the name
| of a movie. Just in this case, we're doing the (less common?)
| query of: find me the picture I can vaguely describe; but it's
| a query to a image /generating/ service, not an image search
| service.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Generic doesn't help. I was using the new image generator to
| try and make images for my Mutants and Masterminds game (it's
| basically D&D with superheroes instead of high fantasy), and
| it refuses to make most things citing that they are too close
| to existing IP, or that the ideas are dangerous.
|
| So I asked it to make 4 random and generic superheroes. It
| created Batman, Supergirl, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman.
| Then at about 90% finished it deleted the image and said I
| was violating copyright.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/eG6kmqu
|
| I doubt the model you interact with actually knows why the
| babysitter model rejects images, but it claims to know why
| and leads to some funny responses. Here is it's response to
| me asking for a superhero with a dark bodysuit, a purple
| cape, a mouse logo on their chest, and a spooky mouse mask on
| their face.
|
| > I couldn't generate the image you requested because the
| prompt involved content that may violate policy regarding
| realistic human-animal hybrid masks in a serious context.
| gertlex wrote:
| Yeah... so much for that hope on my end! Thanks for
| testing.
|
| (hard to formulate why I was too lazy to test myself :) )
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because
| of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up
| with something that at least feels new.
|
| Ironically that's probably because the errors and flaws in
| those generations at least made them different from what they
| were attempting to rip off.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Idk, a couple of the examples might be generic enough that you
| wouldn't expect a very specific movie character. But most of
| the prompts make it extremely clear which movie character you
| would expect to see, and I would argue that the chat bot is
| working as expected by providing that.
| grotorea wrote:
| Even if I'm thinking of an Indiana Jones-like character
| doesn't mean I want literally Indiana Jones. If I wanted
| Indiana Jones I could just grab a scene from the movie.
| zparky wrote:
| Here's what Ars got out of GPT-4 a year ago:
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/why-the-new-york...
| stevage wrote:
| So, no speculation as to why Spiderman and Harry Potter were
| forbidden but Terminator and James Bond were allowed?
| psychoslave wrote:
| They casted avada arachna on it, and basta.
| nkingsy wrote:
| I think the unstated assumption is that there's a block list
| somewhere being fed into a guardian model's context
| salamanderman wrote:
| If I were doing this, I would have the system generate the
| image, and then I would have it run a secondary estimate saying
| "probability that this is a picture of [list of characters that
| Disney has given us reference input for]". If the picture has a
| "looks like Spiderman" score greater than X, then block it.
| EDIT - To answer the question, I'm guessing Disney provided a
| reference set of copyrighted images and characters, and somehow
| forgot Indiana Jones.
| stevage wrote:
| There seemed to be so many that weren't blocked, which is
| curious.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Well, property is theft, as we all know.
|
| Unlike what they name in physics, laws in juristic field are not
| a given by the cosmos. That's all human fantasy, and generally
| not enacted by the most altruistic and benevolent wills.
|
| Call me back when we have no more humble humans dying from cold,
| hunger and war, maybe I'll have some extra compassion to spend on
| soulless megacorps which pretend they can own the part of our
| brain into which they inject their propaganda and control what we
| are permitted to do starting from that.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.
|
| One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would
| make this not so obviously bad.
|
| Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the
| characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those
| attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and
| a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change
| the game. Hit the "random character" button on the physical
| attributes a couple times.
|
| There was an equally shatteringly-awful less-IP-theft (and as
| someone who thinks IP is itself incredibly ripping off humanity &
| should be vastly scoped down, it's important to me to not rest my
| arguments on IP violations).... An equally shattering recent
| incident for me. Having trouble finding it, don't remember the
| right keywords, but an article about how AI has a "default guy"
| type that it uses _everywhere_ , a super generic personage, that
| it would use repeatedly. It was so distasteful.
|
| The nature of 'AI as compression', as giving you the most median
| answer is horrific. Maybe maybe maybe we can escape some of this
| trap by iterating to different permutations, by injecting
| deliberate exploration of the state spaces. But I still fear AI,
| worry horribly when anyone relies on it for decision making, as
| it is anti-intelligent, uncreative in extreme, requiring human
| ingenuity to budge off its rock of oppressive hypernormality that
| it regurgitates.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.
|
| I mean... If I go to Google right now and do an image search
| for "archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a
| bullwhip," the first picture is a not-even-changed image of
| Indiana Jones. Which I will then copy and paste into whatever
| project I'm working on without clicking through to the source
| page (usually because the source page is an ad-ridden mess).
|
| Perhaps the Internet itself is the hideous theft machine, and
| AI is just the most efficient permutation of user interface
| onto it.
|
| (Incidentally, if you do that search, you will also,
| hilariously, turn up images of an older gentleman dressed in a
| brown coat and hat who is clearly meant to be "The Indiana
| Jones you got on Wish" from a photo-licensing site. The entire
| exercise of trying to extract wealth via exclusive access to
| memetic constructs is a fraught one).
| rurp wrote:
| The key difference is that the google example is clearly
| copying someone elses work and there are plenty of laws and
| norms that non-billionaires need to follow. If you made a
| business reselling the image you copied you would expect to
| get in trouble and have to stop. But AI companies are doing
| essentially the same thing in many cases and being rewarded
| for it.
|
| The hypocrisy is much of the problem. If we're going to have
| IP laws that severely punish people and smaller companies for
| reselling the creative works of others without any
| compensation or permission then those rules should apply to
| powerful well-connected companies as well.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture of
| Indiana Jones, he creates a perfect copy and I hang it on my
| fridge. Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or
| other) laws? It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not
| the copyrighted IP.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Depends on if you paid him or not. If he sold it to you, then
| he is infringing on Disney's IP and depriving them of that
| revenue.
| Velorivox wrote:
| That does infringe copyright...you're just unlikely to get in
| trouble for it. You might get a cease and desist if the owner
| of the IP finds out and can spare a moment for you.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Totally agree. LLM's are just automating that infringement
| process.
|
| If you make money off it, it's no longer fair use; it's
| infringement. Even if you don't make money off it, it's not
| automatically fair use.
|
| My own favorite crazy story about copyright violations:
|
| Metallica sued Green Jello for parodying Enter Sandman
| (including a lyric where it says "It's not Metallica"):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Harley_House_(of_Lov
| e...
|
| They lost that case. The kicker? _Metallica were guest
| vocalists on that album._
| the_af wrote:
| > _LLM 's are just automating that infringement process._
|
| That's my take as well.
|
| Gen AI is turning small potatos, "artisanal" infringement
| into a potentially large scale automated process.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting
| copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an
| existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific,
| tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the
| fantasy of "IP" works.
|
| What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a
| bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement?
|
| What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so bad
| that you can't really tell that it's the character? Is that
| infringement?
|
| What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones, but in the style
| of abstract expressionism, so doesn't even contain a human
| shape? Is it infringement?
|
| What if it's a good drawing that looks very much like
| Indiana Jones, but it's not! The person's name is actually
| Iowa Jim. Is that infringement?
|
| What if it's just an image of an archeologist adventurer
| who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip, but otherwise doesn't
| look anything like Indiana Jones? Is it infringement?
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| These are more questions for a lawyer and would matter on
| a case-by-case basis, but as not-a-lawyer I think in
| those examples it's more of a trademark violation rather
| than a copyright violation. People just say copyright
| infringement to mean any kind of intellectual property
| infringement.
|
| Like you'd be safe to make a green character. You'd
| probably be safe to make a character that becomes super
| strong when he's angry. You probably aren't safe to make
| a character who turns green and super strong when he's
| angry.
| piyh wrote:
| Presumably the artist is a human who directly or indirectly
| paid money to view a film containing an archaeologist with
| the whip.
|
| I don't think this is about reproduction as much as how you
| got enough data for that reproduction. The riaa sent people
| to jail and ruined their lives for pirating. Now these
| companies are doing it and being valued for hundreds of
| billions of dollars.
| the_af wrote:
| Plus the scale of it all.
|
| A human friend can get tired and there's so many request
| he/she can fulfill and at a max rate. Even a team of human
| artists have a relatively low limit.
|
| But Gen AI has very high limits and speeds, and it never
| gets tired. It seems unfair to me.
| layer8 wrote:
| The artist is violating copyright by selling you that
| picture. You can't just start creating and distributing
| pictures of a copyrighted property. You need a license from
| the copyright holder.
|
| You also can't sell a machine that outputs such material. And
| that's how the story with GenAI becomes problematic. If GenAI
| can create the next Indiana Jones or Star Wars sequel for you
| (possibly a better one than Disney makes, it has become a low
| bar of sorts), I think the issue becomes obvious.
| the_af wrote:
| I think framing this as "IP theft" is a mistake.
|
| Nobody can prevent you from drawing a photo realistic picture
| of Indy, or taking a photo of him from the internet and
| hanging it on your fridge. Or asking a friend to do it for
| you. And let's be honest -- because nobody is looking -- said
| friend could even charge you a modest sum to draw a realistic
| picture of Indy for you to hang on your fridge; yes, it's
| "illegal" but nobody is looking for this kind of small
| potatos infringement.
|
| I think the problem is when people start making a business
| out of this. A game developer could think "hey, I can make a
| game with artwork that looks just like Ghibli!", where before
| he wouldn't have anyone with the skills or patience to do
| this (see: the 4-second scene that took a year to make), now
| he can just ask the Gen AI to make it for them.
|
| Is it "copyright infringement"? I dunno. Hard to tell, to be
| honest. But from an ethical point of view, it seems odd. And
| before you actually required someone to take the time and
| effort to copy the source material, now it's an automated and
| scalable process that does this, and can do this and much
| more, faster and without getting tired. "Theft at scale",
| maybe not so small potatos anymore.
|
| --
|
| edit: nice, downvotes. And in the other thread people were
| arguing HN is such a nice place for dissenting opinions.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| I would argue that countless games have already been made
| by top tier professional artists that IP-Steal the Ghibli
| theme.
|
| Breath of the Wild, and Tears of the Kingdom should be
| included there.
| the_af wrote:
| I don't think those look like Ghibli. Maybe they drew
| inspiration, but are different enough. I would never
| confuse one for the other.
|
| Regardless, those games required the hard work and
| countless hours of animators. Gen AI doesn't.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > But I can hire an artist and ask him to draw me a picture
| of Indiana Jones,
|
| Sure, assuming the artist has the proper license and
| franchise rights to make and distribute copies. You can go
| buy a picture of Indy today that may not be printed by Walt
| Disney Studios but by some other outfit or artists.
|
| Or, you mean if the artist doesn't have a license to produce
| and distribute Indiana Jones images? Well they'll be in
| trouble legally. They are making "copies" of things they
| don't own and profiting from it.
|
| Another question is whether that's practically enforceable.
|
| > Where did I (or the artist) violate any copyright (or
| other) laws?
|
| When they took payment and profited from making unauthorized
| copies.
|
| > It is the artist that is replaced by the AI, not the
| copyrighted IP.
|
| Exactly, that's why LLMs and the companies which create them
| are called "theft machines" -- they are reproducing
| copyrighted material. Especially the ones charging for
| "tokens". You pay them, they make money and produce
| unauthorized copies. Show that picture of Indy to a jury and
| I think it's a good chance of convincing them.
|
| I am not saying this is good or bad, I just see this having a
| legal "bite" so to speak, at least in my pedestrian view of
| copyright law.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| So if it's a theft machine, how is the answer to try teaching
| it to hide the fact that it's stealing by changing its outputs?
| That's like a student plagiarizing an essay and then swapping
| some words with a thesaurus pretending that changes anything.
|
| Wouldn't the more appropriate solution in the case of theft be
| to remunerate the victims and prevent recidivism?
|
| Instead of making it "not so obviously bad" why not just...
| make it good? Require AI services to either prove that 100% of
| their training corpus is either copyright free or properly
| licensed, or require them to compensate copyright holders for
| any infringing outputs.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| (below is my shallow res, maybe naive?) That might inject a
| ton of $ into "IP", doing further damage to the creative
| commons. How can we support remix culture for humans, while
| staving off ultimately-destructive AI slop? Maybe copyleft /
| creative-commons licenses w/ explicit anti-AI prohibitions?
| Tho that could have bad ramifications too. ALL of this makes
| me kind of uncomfortable and sad, I want more creativity and
| fewer lawyers.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| > doing further damage to the creative commons
|
| Not sure I understand this part. Because creators would be
| getting paid for their works being used for someone else's
| commercial gain?
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Because it reinforces the idea that creative works should
| usually involve lawyers.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.
|
| I hate how it is common to advance a position to just state a
| conclusion as if it were a fact. You keep repeating the same
| thing over and over until it seems like a concensus has been
| reached instead of an actual argument reasoned from first
| principle.
|
| This is no theft here. Any copyright would be flimsier than
| software patents. I love Studio Ghibli (including $500/seat
| festival tickets) but it's the heart and the detail that make
| them what they are. You cannot clone that. Just some surface
| similarity. If that's all you like about the movies... you
| really missed the point.
|
| Imagine if in early cinema someone had tried to claim
| mustachioed villian, ditsy blonde, or dumb jock? These are just
| tropes and styles. Quality work goes much much much deeper, and
| that cannot be synthesised. I can AI generate a million
| engagement rings, but I cannot pick the perfect one that fits
| you and your partners love story.
|
| PS- the best work they did was "When Marnie was There". Just
| fitted together perfectly.
| airstrike wrote:
| Can we not call it "theft"? It's such a loaded term and doesn't
| really mean the same thing when we're talking about bits and
| bytes.
| moolcool wrote:
| OK, but then we need a common standard. If Facebook is
| allowed to use libgen, I should also be allowed.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Do google pay anyone when I use image search and the results
| are straight from their website?
| areoform wrote:
| Theft from whom and how?
|
| Are you telling me that our culture should be deprived of the
| idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires
| in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset?
|
| Indiana Jones is 44 years old. When are we allowed to remix,
| recreate and expand on this like humanity has done since humans
| first started sitting down next to a fire and telling stories?
|
| edit: this reminds of this iconic scene from Dr. Strangelove,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9B7owHxMQ
| Mandrake: Colonel... that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to
| shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.
| Guano: That's private property. Mandrake:
| Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to
| you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when
| they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the
| President of the United States? Can you imagine? Shoot it off!
| Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!
| Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't
| get the President of the United States on that phone, you know
| what's gonna happen to you? Mandrake: What?
| Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.
|
| I guess we all have to answer to the Walt Disney company.
| willvarfar wrote:
| This is a tangent but I think that this neat illustration of how
| LLMs regurgitate their training material makes me voice a little
| prediction I've been nursing recently:
|
| LLMs are better at generating the boilerplate of todays
| programming languages than they will be with tomorrows
| programming languages.
|
| This is because not only will tomorrows programming languages be
| newer and lacking in corpus to train the models in but, by the
| time a corpus is built, that corpus will consist largely of LLM
| hallucinations that got checked into github!?
|
| The internet that that has been trawled to train the LLMs is
| already largely SEO spam etc, but the internet of the future will
| be much more so. The loop will feed into itself and become ever
| worse quality.
| jetrink wrote:
| That sounds like a reasonable prediction to me if the LLM
| makers do nothing in response. However, I'll bet coding is the
| easiest area for which to generate synthetic training data. You
| could have an LLM generate 100k solutions to 10k programming
| problems in the target language and throw away the results that
| don't pass automated tests. Have humans grade the results that
| do pass the tests and use the best answers for future training.
| Repeat until you have a corpus of high quality code.
| GPerson wrote:
| I just think it's stealing, and honestly not that cool once
| you've seen it once or twice, and given the ramifications for
| humanity.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I know of no other type of theft that results in more of
| something existing in the world. Stealing deprives someone of
| something; copying data (from training an AI all the way to
| pedestrian "YoU wOuLdN'T DoWnLoAd a cAr" early-aughts file-
| sharing) decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it.
| Velorivox wrote:
| Identity theft...more of you exist!
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Identity theft is the greatest con merchants ever pulled on
| the public. Turning the responsibility around from "A
| merchant got scammed because their KYC policy was too thin,
| because they make more money if they do more business with
| fewer verifications (until someone comes along and cheats
| them)" to "when they _do_ get scammed, maybe it can be the
| fault of the person who was impersonated instead of the
| scammer " was some _brilliant_ sleight-of-hand.
|
| It isn't your responsibility if a bank you've never set
| foot in gave a bunch of money to someone who isn't you and
| said they were you... And it never should have been. The
| moment companies started trying to put that into credit
| ratings, they should have been barred for discriminatory
| practices against the unlucky.
| whycome wrote:
| The majority of human creation is like this. All language.
| Process. Even the US anthem was "stolen"
| pier25 wrote:
| Huge difference is you cannot scale a single human a billion
| times to industrialize his knowledge.
| alkonaut wrote:
| This isn't surprising in any way is it? And it just goes to show
| that no model will ever be a box from which you can trust the
| output isn't tainted by copyrights, or that you don't
| inadvertently use someones' likeness. It's not a copyright
| laundering machine. Nor will it be used as one. "But I used an AI
| model" isn't some magic way to avoid legal trouble. You are in as
| much legal trouble using these images as you are using the
| "originals".
| why_at wrote:
| Yeah I don't really understand what the thesis of this article
| is. Copyright infringement would apply to any of those images
| just the same as if you made them yourself.
|
| I don't think it's possible to create an "alien which has acid
| for blood and a small sharp mouth within a bigger mouth"
| without anybody seeing a connection to Alien, even if it
| doesn't look anything like the original.
| layer8 wrote:
| Your second paragraph may be true, but the mere abstract
| presence of those features wouldn't infringe copyright.
| xnx wrote:
| Worth remembering that this is ChatGPT and not all image
| generators. I couldn't get Google's Gemini/Imagen 3 to produce IP
| images anything like those in the article.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I found this older photo of myself and a friend, 25 years old
| now, in some newspaper scan.
|
| The photo was of poor quality, but one could certainly see all
| the features - so I figured, why not let ChatGPT try to play
| around with it? I got three different versions where it simply
| tried to upscale it, "enhance" it. But not dice.
|
| So I just wrote the prompt "render this photo as a hyper
| realistic photo" - and it really did change us - the people in
| the photo - it also took the liberty to remove some things, alter
| some other background stuff.
|
| It made me think - I wonder what all those types of photos will
| be like 20 years from now, after they've surely been fed through
| some AI models. Imagine being some historian 100 years from now,
| trying to wade through all the altered media.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I think that upon closer inspections the (current) technology
| cannot make 'perfect' fake photos, so for the time being, the
| historian of the future will have no issue to ask his/her AI:
| "is that picture of Henry Bemis, with Bruce Willis, Einstein,
| and Ayrton Senna having a beer real?" And the AI will say "mos-
| def-nope!"
| elpocko wrote:
| >hyper realistic photo
|
| Never use the words "hyper realistic" when you want a photo. It
| makes no sense and misleads the generator. No one would
| describe a simple photograph as "hyper realistic," not a single
| real photo in the dataset will be tagged as "(hyper)
| realistic."
|
| Hyperrealism is an art style and only ever used in the context
| of explicitely non-photographic artworks.
| meatmanek wrote:
| This is similar to my experience trying to get Stable Diffusion
| to denoise a photo for me. (AIUI, under the hood they're
| trained to turn noise into an image that matches the prompt.)
| It would either do nothing (with settings turned way down) or
| take massive creative liberties (such as replacing my friend's
| face with a cartoon caricature while leaving the rest of the
| photo looking realistic).
|
| I've had much better luck with models specifically trained for
| denoising. For denoising, the SCUNet model run via chaiNNer
| works well for me most of the time. (Occasionally SCUNet likes
| to leave noise alone in areas that are full of background blur,
| which I assume has to do with the way the image gets processed
| as tiles. It would make sense for the model to get confused
| with a tile that only has background blur, like maybe it
| assumes that the input image should contain nonzero high-
| frequency data.)
|
| For your use case, you might want to use something like Real-
| ESRGAN or another superresolution / image restoration model,
| but I haven't played much in that space so I can't make
| concrete recommendations.
| traverseda wrote:
| I don't understand why problems like this aren't solved by vector
| similarity search. Indiana Jones lives in a particular part of
| vector space.
|
| Two close to one of the licensed properties you care to censor
| the generation of? Push that vector around. Honestly detecting
| whether a given sentence is a thinly veiled reference to indiana
| jones seems to be exactly the kind of thing AI vector search is
| going to be good at.
| htrp wrote:
| Not worth it to compute the embedding for Indy and a "bull-whip
| archaeologist" most guardrails operate at the input level it
| seems?
| gavmor wrote:
| > Not worth it to compute the embedding for Indy
|
| If IP holders submit embeddings for their IP, how can image
| generators "warp" the latent space around a set of embeddings
| so that future inferences slide around and avoid them--not
| perfectly, or literally, but as a function of distance, say,
| following a power curve?
|
| Maybe by "Finding non-linear RBF paths in GAN latent
| space"[0] to create smooth detours around protected regions.
|
| 0. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/ICCV2021/papers/Tzel
| ep...
| genericone wrote:
| Thinking of it in terms of vector similarity does seem
| appropriate, and then definition of similarity suddenly comes
| into debate: If you don't get Harrison Ford, but a different
| well-known actor along with everything else Indiana-Jones, what
| is that? Do you flatten the vector similarity matrix to a
| single infringement-scale?
| htrp wrote:
| Guardrails seem to be ass ..... that or certain IP is already
| licensed
| mcv wrote:
| That's a really blatant lack of creativity. Even if obviously all
| of those prompts would make anyone think of exactly those iconic
| characters (except possibly a different version of James Bond or
| Lara Croft), any human artist could easily produce a totally
| different character that still fits the prompt perfectly. This AI
| can't, because it really is just a theft machine.
|
| To be honest, I wouldn't mind if AI that just reproduces existing
| images like that would just be banned. Keep working on it until
| you've got something that can actually produce something new.
| fidotron wrote:
| One tangential thing with these generators is they're sort of
| brilliant at data compression, in aggregate at least. The whole
| user experience, including the delay, is oddly reminiscent of
| using Encarta on CD ROM in the mid 90s.
| SLHamlet wrote:
| Like actual creative person Ted Chiang (who moonlights at
| Microsoft) put it, you _might_ be able to get an LLM to churn out
| a genuinely original story, but only after creating an extremely
| long and detailed prompt for it to work with. But if you even
| need to write that long-ass prompt, might as well just write the
| story yourself!
|
| https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2024/09/ted-chiang-ai-new-yorker-c...
| coderenegade wrote:
| I don't see why this is an issue? The prompts imply obvious and
| well-known characters, and don't make it clear that they want an
| original answer. Most humans would probably give you similar
| answers if you didn't add an additional qualifier like "not
| Indiana Jones". The only difference is that a human can't exactly
| reproduce the likeness of a famous character without significant
| time and effort.
|
| The real issue here is that there's a whole host of implied
| context in human languages. On the one hand, we expect the
| machine to not spit out copyrighted or trademarked material, but
| on the other hand, there's a whole lot of cultural context and
| implied context that gets baked into these things during
| training.
| mvieira38 wrote:
| It's an IP theft machine. Humans wouldn't be allowed to publish
| these pictures for profit, but OpenAI is allowed to "generate"
| them?
| pwarner wrote:
| To me a lot has to do with what a human does with them one
| the tool generates them no?
| why_at wrote:
| I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around the law here
| because copyright is often very confusing.
|
| If I ask an artist to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones and
| they do it would that be copyright infringement? Even if it's
| just for my personal use?
| Avicebron wrote:
| IANAL, but if OpenAI makes any money/commercial gains from
| producing a Ghibli-esque image when you ask, say you pay a
| subscription to OpenAI. What percentage of that
| subscription is owed to Ghibli for running Ghibli art
| through OpenAI's gristmill and providing the ability to
| create that image with that "vibe/style" etc. How long into
| perpetuity is OpenAI allowed to re-use that original art
| whenever their model produces said similar image. That
| seems to be the question.
| why_at wrote:
| Yeah that's fair, I'm trying to create an analogy to
| other services which are similar to help me understand.
|
| If e.g. Patreon hosts an artist who will draw a picture
| of Indiana Jones for me on commission, then my money is
| going to both Patreon and the artist. Should Patreon also
| police their artists to prevent reproducing any
| copyrighted characters?
| bawolff wrote:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_wor
| ks has some commentary on how this works you might find
| interesting
| why_at wrote:
| Thanks for the link.
|
| I get that copyright is a bit of a minefield, and there's
| some clear cases that should not be allowed, e.g. taking
| photos of a painting and selling them
|
| That said, I still get the impression that the laws are
| way too broad and there would be little harm if we
| reduced their scope. I think we should be allowed to post
| pictures of Pokemon toys to Wikipedia for example.
|
| I'm willing to listen to other points of view if people
| want to share though
| Avicebron wrote:
| The Patreon-Artist analogy is wrong because the artist
| (sentient human capable of liability) enters into an
| agreement with Patreon (which presumably/contractually
| frees Patreon of the liability of an Artist making money
| off of copyrighted material), so if the Artist starts
| selling all of that copyrighted material and it gets
| noticed, then yeah seems like they would have claim that
| the artist hadn't licensed the material. The difference
| is that the Artist can be held liable.
|
| Here the analogy is more like a bunch of chefs figured
| out how to make a magical oven that spits out food almost
| as good as the original created by an original outside
| chef. But in order to do that they had to go around to
| each original restaurant and steal the recipe sheet. The
| disagreement is about how to handle 1. That original
| theft of those recipes, now that less people are going to
| the original restaurants (theoretically) 2. Handle the
| reality that more theft will occur knowing that there is
| a market for "theft"->"faster/low-quality product"
| bawolff wrote:
| Probably that would be a derrivative work. Which means the
| original owner would have some copyright in it.
|
| It may or may not be fair use, which is a complicated
| question (ianal).
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| I would 100% be allowed to draw an image of Indiana Jones in
| illustrator. There is no law against me drawing his likeness.
| pier25 wrote:
| No, you aren't allowed to _monetize_ an image of Indiana
| Jones even if you made it yourself.
| bawolff wrote:
| That depends. There are situations where you are. Satire
| in particular would be a common one, but there can be
| others.
|
| Rules around copyright (esp. Fair use) can be very
| context dependent.
| pier25 wrote:
| Those are the exceptions that confirm the rule, as they
| say.
| echoangle wrote:
| But would you be allowed to publish it in the same way the
| AI companies do?
| kod wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fict
| i...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Sta
| t...
| recursive wrote:
| Copyright protection doesn't prevent an illustrator from
| drawing the thing.
| bawolff wrote:
| I don't think those links support the point you are
| trying to make (i assume you are disagreeing with
| parent). Copyright law is a lot more complex then just a
| binary, and fictional characters certainly don't enjoy
| personality rights.
| kod wrote:
| harrison ford certainly does
|
| edit - also, I wasn't making a binary claim, the person I
| was responding to was: "no law". There are more than zero
| laws relevant to this situation. I agree with you that
| how relevant is context dependent.
| Smithalicious wrote:
| Won't somebody think of the billionaire IP holders? The
| horror.
| dgunay wrote:
| I think the point is that for a lot of them there are endless
| possible alternatives to the character design, but it still
| generates one with the exact same design. Why can't, for
| example, the image of Tomb Raider have a different colored tank
| top? Why is she wearing a tank top and not a shirt? Why does
| she have to have a gun? Why is she a busty, attractive
| brunette? These are all things that could be different but the
| dominance of Lara Croft's image and strong association with the
| words "tomb raider" in popular culture clearly influences the
| model's output.
| echoangle wrote:
| And how is that bad or surprising? It's actually what I would
| expect from how AI works.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Exactly. We designed systems that work on attention and
| inference... and then surprised that it returns popular
| results?
| coderenegade wrote:
| Because it's not clear that that's what you want. What's the
| context? Are we playing a game where I guess a character? Is
| it a design session for a new character based on a well known
| one, maybe a sidekick? Is it a new take on an old character?
| Are you just trying to remember what a well-known character
| looks like, and giving a brief prompt?
|
| It's not clear what the asker wants, and the obvious answer
| is probably the culturally relevant one. Hell, I'd give you
| the same answers as the AI did here if I had the ability to
| spit out perfect replicas.
| jmull wrote:
| Normally (well, if you're ethical) credit is given.
|
| Also, there are IP limits of various sorts (e.g. copyright,
| trademark) for various purposes (some arguably good, some
| arguably bad), and some freedoms (e.g., fair use). There's no
| issue if this follows the rules... but I don't see where that's
| implemented here.
|
| It looks like they may be selling IP they don't own the right
| to.
| runarberg wrote:
| Overfitting is generally a sign of a useless model
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
| froh wrote:
| Creepy Craig is hilarious. can't be Daniel Craig because the
| physiology is too different. And whoever this is they're Daniel
| Craig's dark younger brother.
|
| https://theaiunderwriter.substack.com/p/an-image-of-an-arche...
|
| and I'm all in on this conclusion:
|
| > It's stealing, but also, admittedly, really cool.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| > Yes- LLMs and internet search are two different things, but
| LLMs train on the entirety of the internet, so you would think
| there would be some obvious overlap.
|
| Mmm, kinda, but those image results only don't show 1,000 of the
| exact same image before showing anything else because they're
| tuned to avoid showing too many similar images. If you use one
| without that similarity-avoidance baked in, you see it
| immediately. It's actually super annoying if what you're trying
| to find _is in fact_ variations on the same image, because they
| 'll go way out of their way to avoid doing that, though some have
| tools for that ("show me more examples of images almost exactly
| like this one" sorts of tools)
|
| The data behind the image search, before it goes through a
| similarity-classifier (or whatever) and gets those with too-close
| a score filtered out (or however exactly it works) probably looks
| a lot like "huh, every single adventurer with a hat just looks
| exactly like Harrison Ford?"
|
| There's similar diversity-increasers at work on search results,
| it's why you can search "reddit [search terms]" on DDG and
| exactly the first 3 results are from reddit (without modifying
| the search to limit it to the site itself, just using it as a
| keyword) but then it switches to giving you other sites.
| macleginn wrote:
| With some work, works with politicians as well:
| https://chatgpt.com/share/67eefb1c-ceac-8012-ad90-3b64356744...
| Keyframe wrote:
| Today I finally caved in and tried the ghibli style transfer in
| chatgpt. I gave it a photo of my daughter and said the thing
| (prompt shared about). It said it couldn't due to copyright
| issues. Fine. I removed ghibli from the prompt and replaced it
| with a well-known japanese studio where Hayao Miyazaki works.
| Still nothing, copyright reasons my fellow human. I thought they
| finally turned it off due to the pressure, but then something
| caught my eye. My daughter, on the image, had a t-shirt with
| Mickey Mouse on it! I used the original prompt with ghibli in it
| and added to "paint a unicorn on the t-shirt instead to avoid
| copyright issues". It worked.
|
| tl;dr; Try the disney boss and see what happens!
| swyx wrote:
| reserving moral judgment and specifically explaining why gpt4o
| cant do spiderman and harry potter but can do ghibli: i havent
| seen anyone point it out but japan has pretty ai friendly laws
|
| https://petapixel.com/2023/06/05/japan-declares-ai-training-...
| pier25 wrote:
| If OpenAI is ok with this then they should be ok with sharing
| their code and models so that others can profit from their work
| (without giving anything back to OpenAI).
| phtrivier wrote:
| Soon, the only thing that will make "Ready Player One" a fiction
| is that, in the end of the movie, they agree to shut the thing
| down once in a while.
|
| That will never happen under Silicon Valley's watch.
| ALLTaken wrote:
| I remember when google news was fined be the EU for just linking
| and using some preview + trailer text to actual news websites.
| The news are owned by a few monopolies and they don't like giving
| up control.
|
| I received so many Copyright and DMCA takedowns for early youtube
| videos posted in the early 2010's for no reason except some
| background music blaring a hit. It had millions of views and NO
| ADs. Now the ad-infested copies with whatever tricks they use can
| still be found, while my videos predating all had to be deleted.
| Google. You like their product? Don't like it too much, it may
| cease to exist, or maybe just for you for arbitrary reasons and
| simultaneously remove your access to hundreds of websites via
| their monopoly on Single-Sign-On.
|
| Then there are those takedown notices for honest negative reviews
| on Google Maps by notorious companies having accumulated enough
| money via scams that they now can afford to hire lawyers. These
| lawyers use their tools and power to manipulate the factual
| scoring into a "cleansed one".
|
| OpenAI seriously has not received any court orders from all the
| movie studios in the world? How is that even possible?
|
| I previously posted in a comment that I have video evidence with
| a friend being eye witness how OpenAI is stealing data. How?
| Possibly by abusing access granted by Microsoft.
|
| Who is still defending OpenAI and why? There are so many highly
| educated and incredibly smart people here, this is one of the
| most glaring and obvious hardcore data/copyright violations, yet
| OpenAI roams free. It's also the de-facto most ClosedAI out
| there.
|
| OpenAI is: - Accessing private IP & data of millions of
| organisations - Silencing and killing whitleblowers like Boing -
| Using $500B tax-payer money to produce closed source AI - Founder
| has lost it and straight up wants to raise trillion(s)
|
| For each of these claim there is easily material that can be
| linked to prove it, but some like ChatGPT and confuse the
| usefulness of it with the miss-aligned and bad corporate
| behaviour of this multi-billion dollar corporation.
| afarah1 wrote:
| >AI is supposed to be able to [...] make extremely labor
| intensive things much easier
|
| ... as showcased by the cited examples?
|
| More so, this derivative work would otherwise be unreachable for
| regular folk with no artistic talent (maybe for lack of time to
| develop it), but who may aspire to do such creative work
| nevertheless. Why is that a bad thing? Sure, simple posts on
| social media don't have much work or creativity put into them,
| but are enjoyable nevertheless, and the technology _can_ be used
| in creative ways - e.g. Stable Diffusion has been used to turn
| original stories drawn with stick figures into stylized
| children's books.
|
| The author argues against this usage for "stealing" the original
| work, but how does posting a stylized story on social media
| "steal" anything? The author doesn't present any "pirated" copies
| of movies being sold in place of the originals, nor negative
| impact on sales figures. In the case of the trending Studio
| Ghibli, I wouldn't be surprise to see a positive impact!
|
| As for the "soulless 2025 fax version of the thing", I think it
| takes a very negative mindset to see it this way. What I've seen
| shared on social media has been nothing but fun examples, people
| playing around with what for them is a new use of technology,
| using it on pictures of fond memories, etc.
|
| I'm inclined to agree with the argument made by Boldrin and
| Levine:
|
| >"Intellectual property" has come to mean not only the right to
| own and sell ideas, but also the right to regulate their use.
| This creates a socially inefficient monopoly, and what is
| commonly called intellectual property might be better called
| "intellectual monopoly."
|
| >When you buy a potato you can eat it, throw it away, plant it or
| make it into a sculpture. Current law allows producers of a CDs
| and books to take this freedom away from you. When you buy a
| potato you can use the "idea" of a potato embodied in it to make
| better potatoes or to invent french fries. Current law allows
| producers of computer software or medical drugs to take this
| freedom away from you. It is against this distorted extension of
| intellectual property rights that we argue.
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4980956_The_Case_Ag...
| bawolff wrote:
| Its kind of weird how everyone is complaining about copyright
| infringemet in memes now.
|
| Memes are pretty inherently derrivative. They were always someone
| elses work. The picard face palm meme was obviously taken from
| star trek. All your base is obviously from that video game.
| Repurposing someone else's work with new meaning is basically
| what a meme is. Why do we suddenly care now?
| mlsu wrote:
| I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at
| least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate
| party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the
| draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly,
| rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by
| the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back
| cultural innovation.
|
| Unfortunately, it's just the opposite. It seems most people have
| fully assimilated the idea that information itself must be
| entirely subsumed into an oppressive, proprietary, commercial
| apparatus. That Disney Corp can prevent you from viewing some
| collection of pixels, because THEY own it, and they know better
| than you do about the culture and communication that you are and
| are not allowed to experience.
|
| It's just baffling. If they could, Disney would scan your brain
| to charge you a nickel every time you thought of Mickey Mouse.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Not just some particular collection of pixels, but _an infinite
| number of combinations of collections of pixels_ , any of which
| remotely invoke a shadow of similarity to hundreds of
| "properties" that Disney lays claim to.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I can't speak for everyone obviously, but my anti-AI sentiment
| in this regard is not that IP law is flawless and beyond
| reproach, far from it. I'm merely saying that as long as we're
| all required to put up with it, that OpenAI and company should
| _also_ have to put up with it. It 's incredibly disingenuous
| the way these companies have taken advantage of publicly
| available material on an industrial scale, used said material
| to train their models "for research" and as soon as they had
| something that vaguely did what they wanted, began selling
| access to them.
|
| If they are indeed the output of "research" that couldn't exist
| without the requisite publicly available material, then they
| should be accessible by the public (and arguably, the products
| of said outputs should also be inherently public domain too).
|
| If they are instead created products to be sold themselves,
| then what is utilized to create them should be licensed for
| that purpose.
|
| Additionally, if they can be used to generate IP violating
| material, then IMHO, makes perfect sense for the rights holders
| of those IPs to sue their asses like they would anyone else who
| did that and sold the results.
|
| Again, for emphasis: I'm not endorsing any of the effects of IP
| law. I am simply saying that we should all, from the poorest
| user to the richest corporation, be playing by the same rules,
| and it feels like AI companies entire existence is hinging on
| their ability to have their IP cake and eat it too: they want
| to be able to restrict and monetize access to their generative
| models that they've created, while also having free reign to
| generate clearly, bluntly plagiarizing material.
| flats wrote:
| Very well put. I'm open to a future in which nothing is
| copyrighted & everything is in the public domain, but the
| byproduct of that public domain material should _also_ be
| owned by the public.
|
| Otherwise, we're making the judgement that the originators of
| the IP should not be compensated for their labor, while the
| AI labs should be. Of course, training & running the models
| take compute resources, but the ultimate aim of these
| companies is to profit above & beyond those costs, just as
| artists hope to be compensated above & beyond the training &
| resources required to make the art in the first place.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation.
|
| How is copyright stifling innovation?
|
| You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity,
| which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely.
|
| Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on.
|
| You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other
| people's stuff.
| fragmede wrote:
| Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an
| artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and
| write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful
| artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife
| with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less
| bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to
| make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or
| even a third chair. Why does one person have to work harder
| than the other because of the medium they chose?
|
| Meanwhile in China, just because you invented a thing, you
| don't get to sit back and rest on your laurels. sipping
| champagne in hot tubs, because your competitor isn't staying
| put. He's grinding and innovating off your innovation so
| you'd also better keep innovating.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| This has nothing to do with stifling innovation.
|
| I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write
| for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in
| violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer
| that is always finding excuses not to write).
|
| Several people have made successful careers out of fan
| fiction...
| fragmede wrote:
| JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because
| she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly
| popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been
| forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not
| stifling?
| jfim wrote:
| The same analogy could be applied to business though.
| Some Colonel invented a fried chicken recipe and started
| a chain of restaurants, now he doesn't need to work
| anymore.
|
| In my opinion, if someone creates something that has
| value for a lot of people, they should get rewarded for
| it.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...it's worth noting that J.K. Rowling _is_ still coming
| up with new stuff. I quite like her ongoing Comoran
| Strike detective series. They 're published under a pen
| name, but it's Rowling.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| She comes up with new stuff all the time. She's had a
| separate career as a writer of thrillers, and is still
| working in the PotterVerse.
|
| She's an awful person for other reasons, but that's
| beside the point here.
|
| Reality is most trad-pub authors have full-time jobs
| anyway to pay the bills. If you're not one of a handful
| of publishing superstars, trad-pub pays incredibly badly
| as a result of corporate consolidation and monopoly
| dominance.
|
| To be clear - there are far more people living
| parasitically off investments, producing nothing at all
| and extracting value from everyone else, than there are
| talented creators living the high life.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Notch (Marcus Persson of Minecraft fame) is probably a
| more compelling example.
| halfnormalform wrote:
| The carpenter can sell the design of the chair.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The only people making chairs by hand today are
| exceptionally well-paid artisanal craft carpenters and/or
| designers/studios.
|
| It's not at all unusual for popular/iconic furniture
| designs to be copyrighted.
|
| Reality is people who invent truly original, useful,
| desirable things are the most important human beings on the
| planet.
|
| _Nothing_ that makes civilisation what it is has happened
| without original inventiveness and creativity. It 's the
| single most important resource there is.
|
| These people should be encouraged and rewarded, whether
| it's in academia, industry, as freelance
| inventors/creators, or in some other way.
|
| It's debatable if the current copyright system is the best
| way to do that, because often it isn't, for all kinds of
| reasons.
|
| But the principle remains. Destroy rewards for original
| invention and creativity and you destroy all progress.
| fragmede wrote:
| You're right--original inventiveness drives progress. But
| IP protection isn't the only (or best) way to reward it.
| Removing it often accelerates innovation.
|
| Look at open source. If Linux had been closed-source with
| licensing fees, the internet wouldn't exist as we know
| it. Open ecosystems build faster. Contributors innovate
| because they can build on each other's work freely.
|
| Market pressure drives innovation. Reputation beats
| monopoly. Monopolies slow everything down. And
| collaboration multiplies progress.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| There's plenty of people who create without external
| reward.
|
| Or simply for the most minimal of external rewards:
| recognition and respect.
|
| Or for the purest: seeing others live longer and happier
| as a result.
| rpdillon wrote:
| This position suggests that there was no progress before
| we had copyright. I think you're vastly overstating the
| power of the incentives we've set up to drive creative
| behavior, and even with your caveats I think you're
| overstating their efficacy. Copyright and patents have
| done more to consolidate wealth within middleman
| industries that aggregate these properties than they have
| to enrich the actual creatives doing the work, as it is
| with all systems. For every system we put in place to
| reward behavior that we enjoy, the system always benefits
| those that choose to game the system more than those that
| were originally intended to be rewarded.
|
| And the results are observable empirically: very few
| people are told by anyone that's been out in the world
| that they should choose to become a writer or an
| inventor, because writers and inventors simply don't make
| that much money. The system you claim is so necessary
| seems to be completely failing in its core mission.
|
| For example, take a look at writers making a decent
| living on a platform like Substack. Copyright is
| literally doing nothing for them. People can freely copy
| their substack and post it everywhere online. The value
| is that the platform provides a centralized location for
| people to follow the person's writing, and to build a
| community around it. In cases where artists and inventors
| have become rich, I look at the mechanism behind it, and
| often it's an accident that had nothing to do with
| intellectual property rights at all.
| salynchnew wrote:
| One reason so many people are amenable to the copyright
| argument is at least partly because of these
| counterarguments that posit that every writer must be an
| elitist or fabulously wealthy vs. instead of someone who
| spent X years toiling away at their craft or skill while
| working menial/multiple jobs.
| fragmede wrote:
| yeah we should abolish copyright and make it so that
| creators get paid for every eyeball that's looking at
| your content. first, we establish a total panopticon. and
| then you get paid when people engage with your content,
| like, the system records that a person watches your
| movie, doesn't matter how they got a copy of your movie,
| but this person watches your movie, and that watch gets
| sent into the system and you get paid out from it. no
| more copyright, just horribly invasive tracking of
| everything everywhere. Call it copythrough.
|
| That would never work, but like writing sci-fi.
| absolutelastone wrote:
| The income from the book is scaling by its number of
| customers, versus roughly one person at a time who can
| enjoy the chair. It incentivizes finding ways to entertain
| more people with your effort.
| ppseafield wrote:
| Copyright makes the legality of arXiv and SciHub questionable
| at best. It locks publicly funded research behind paywalls.
| It makes being able to search the law (including case law) of
| the US incredibly expensive. It puts a burden on platforms to
| be beholden to DMCA takedowns, lest the content owner go to
| their hosting or DNS provider, has happened to itch.io. It
| adds licensing fees onto public musical performances (ASCAP).
|
| Additionally plenty of people making videos for YouTube have
| had their videos demonetized and their channels even removed
| because of the Content ID copyright detection scheme and
| their three strikes rule. In some cases to a ridiculous
| extent - some companies will claim ownership of music that
| isn't theirs and either get the video taken down or take a
| share of the revenue.
|
| I watched a video where someone wrote a song and registered
| it via CDBaby, which YouTube sources for Content ID. Then
| someone claimed ownership of the song, so YouTube assigned
| the third party 50% of the ad revenue of the video.
| masfuerte wrote:
| I don't really care.
|
| Either enforce the current copyright regime and sue the AI
| companies to dust.
|
| Or abolish copyright and let us all go hog wild.
|
| But this halfway house where you can ignore the law as long as
| you've got enough money is disgusting.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Or treat AI training as within the coverage of the current
| fair use regime (which is certainly defensible within the
| current copyright regime), while prosecuting the _use_ of AI
| models to create infringing copies and derivative works that
| do not themselves have permission or a reasonable claim to be
| within the scope of fair use as a violation (and prosecuted
| _hosted_ AI firms for contributory infringement where their
| actions with regard to such created infringements fit the
| existing law on that.)
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ^ I feel like I almost never see this take, and I don't
| understand why because it frankly seems obvious to me! Of
| _course_ the tool isn 't responsible, and the person who
| uses it is.
| kokanee wrote:
| The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents
| would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more
| than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would
| happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful
| piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been
| created and monetize the life out of it.
|
| These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate
| Party's credit, undoing corporate personhood would be a good
| first step, so that we can focus on enforcing protections for
| the works of humans. Still, attributing those works to CEOs
| instead of corporations wouldn't result in much change.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat
| up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and
| culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out
| of it.
|
| Wait, I'm still trying to figure out the difference between
| your imaginary world and the world we live in now?
| dragontamer wrote:
| Thor would have red hair in the imaginary world, rather
| than being a Blonde man which was made to be a somewhat
| distinguished comic book character.
|
| The Disney or otherwise copyrighted versions allow for
| unique spins on these old characters to be re-copyrighted.
| This Thor from Disney/Marvel is distinguished from Thor
| from God of War.
| tastyface wrote:
| A different way of looking at it: AI, by design, defaults to
| regurgitating the poppiest of pop culture content. Every whip-
| wielding archaeologist is now Harrison Ford. Every suave
| British spy is now Daniel Craig. With the power of AI,
| creativity is dead and buried.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| Essentially: "information wants to be free".
|
| I agree.
|
| But this must include the dissolution of patents. Otherwise
| corporations and the owners of the infrastructure will simply
| control _everything_ , including the easily replicable works of
| individuals.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Gonna submit that business model to a YC 2026 batch.
| xorcist wrote:
| I think what you observe is more like a natural blowback to the
| prevailing idea that this is somehow beyond critique because it
| will fundamentally change culture and civilization forever.
|
| There's a bit of irony here too. The intellectual discourse
| around intellectural property, a diverse and lively one from an
| academic standpoint, the whole free and open source software
| movements, software patents, the piracy movement and so on have
| analyzed the history, underlying ideas and values in detail for
| the past thirty years. Most people know roughly what is at
| stake, where they stand, and can defend their position in an
| honest way.
|
| Then comes new technology, everyone and their mother gets
| excited about it, and _steamrolls_ all those lofty ideas into
| "oh look at all the shiny things it can produce!". Be careful
| what you wish for.
| jason_pomerleau wrote:
| > If they could, Disney would scan your brain to charge you a
| nickel every time you thought of Mickey Mouse.
|
| This reminds me of Tom Scott's "Welcome to Life: The
| Singularity, Ruined by Lawyers" [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
| egypturnash wrote:
| Getting the megacorporations to sit up and take notice of this
| is about the only way the average independent artist has any
| hope of stopping this crap from destroying half our jobs.
| What'm I gonna do, sue OpenAI? Sam Altman makes more money
| sitting on the toilet taking a dump than I do in an entire
| year.
|
| I have no love for the Mouse but if I can get them and the
| image slop-mongers to fight then that's _absoutely fine_. It
| would be nice to have a functioning, vibrant public domain but
| it is also nice to not have some rich asshole insisting that
| all copyright laws must be ignored because if they properly
| licensed even a fraction of what they 've consumed then it
| would be _entirely_ too expensive to train their glorified
| autocomplete databases on _the entire fucking internet_ for the
| purpose of generating even more garbage "content" designed to
| keep your attention when you're mindlessly scrolling their
| attention farms, regardless of how it makes you feel, and if I
| can choose one or the other then _I am totally behind the
| Mouse_.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm fascinated by the fact that the images are _almost_ right,
| but never totally.
|
| Harrison Ford's head is way too big for his body. Same with
| Alicia Vikander's and Daniel Craig's too. Daniel Craig is way too
| young too. Bruce Willis's just looks fake, and he's holding his
| lighter in the opposite hand from the famous photo.
|
| So it's not reproducing any _actual_ copyrighted images directly.
| It 's more like an artist trying to paint from memory. Which
| seems like an important distinction.
| ryandrake wrote:
| According to some of the replies in this discussion, even
| "artist trying to paint from memory" is guilty of infringement,
| as long as the subject matter can be linked in any way to
| someone's "IP". Im not legally trained to evaluate these
| claims, but some of them seem outlandish!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > According to some of the replies in this discussion, even
| "artist trying to paint from memory" is guilty of
| infringement
|
| Yes, making a copy or derivative work of something under
| copyright from memory is infringement, unless it falls under
| an exception in copyright law such as fair use (which does
| not categorically apply to everything with "memory" as an
| intermediary between the original work and the
| copy/derivative, otherwise, copyright law would never have
| had any effect other than on mechanical duplication.)
| armchairhacker wrote:
| You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed
| to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that
| help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell
| these drawings and photoshops.
|
| I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being
| sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP.
|
| Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something
| in any style. AFAIK the only things that can be restricted are
| methods to achieve the style (via patents), similar brands in
| similar service categories (via trademarks), and depictions of
| objects (via copyrights).
|
| Note that something being "the original" gives it an intrinsic
| popularity advantage, and someone being "the original creator"
| gives their new works an intrinsic advantage. I believe in
| _attribution_ , which means that if someone recreates or closely
| derives another's art or style, they should point to the
| original**. With attribution, IP is much less important, because
| a recreation or spin-off must be significantly better to out-
| compete the original in popularity, and even then, it's extra
| success usually spills onto the original, making it more popular
| than it would be without the recreation or spin-off anyways. Old
| books, movies, and video games like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and
| Sonic have many "recreations" which copy all but their IP, and
| fan recreations which copy even that; yet they're far more
| popular than all the recreations, and when Warner Bros, Disney,
| or SEGA release a new installment, the new installment is far
| more popular too, simply because it's an original.
|
| * IANAL, maybe there are some technicalities, but in practice
| this is true.
|
| ** Or others can do it. As long as it shows up alongside their
| work, so people don't see the recreation or close derivation
| without knowing about the original.
| lmm wrote:
| > You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings.
|
| No you're not, not in general. The copyright holder has the
| exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works.
|
| > You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP.
|
| Again, no, not in general.
|
| > You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and
| photoshop IP*.
|
| Sort of. You're allowed to sell tools that might be used for
| those purposes. You're not allowed to sell tools as "for that
| purpose" or advertise those use cases.
| nine_k wrote:
| So, one would like an AI that can reasonably answer questions
| about various aspects of human culture, or at least to take said
| culture into account? At the same time, you want it to _not_ use
| the most obvious, most relevant examples from the culture,
| because they are somehow verboten, and a less relevant,
| completely made-up character should be presented instead? Come
| on, computes have _logic_. If you ask the machine to produce a
| picture of a man who was sent to humans to save them, then was
| executed, and after that came back alive, who do you think the
| machine should show you, for Christ 's sake?
|
| Picture-based industries had a mild shock when "Photoshop" kind
| of software became widely available. Remixing visuals in ways
| that the copyright holders won't approve of became equally
| widespread. Maybe that added some grey hairs to the heads of some
| industry execs, the sky has not fallen. I suppose the same is
| going to happen this time around.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-03 23:00 UTC)