you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Because the training, and therefore the datasets are an important part of the work with AI. A lot of ppl are arguing that therefore, the ppl who provided the data (e.g. artists) should get a cut of the revenue or a static fee or something similar for compensation. Because looking at a picture is deemed fine in our society, but copying it and using it for something else is seen more critically.

Btw. I am totally with you regarding the need to not hinder progress, but at the end of the day, we need to think about both the future prospects and the morality.

There was something about labels being forced to pay a cut of the revenue to all bigger artists for every CD they'd sell. I can't remember what it was exactly, but something like that could be of use here as well maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let's be clear. The ai does not in any way "copy" the picture it is trained on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes.

    And let's also pin down that this is the exact issue we need more laws on. What makes an image copyrightable? When can a copyright get violated? And more specifically: whatever the AI model encompasses, can that inhibit fully copyrighted material? Can a copyrighted image be assumed by noting down all of its features?

    This is the exact corner that we are fighting over currently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This has already been decided. Inspired works are not covered by copyright.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments