▲ 380 ▼ GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright (www.computerweekly.com) submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 151 comments fedilink hide all child comments GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (4 children) humans studying it, is fair use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) So if a tool is involved, it's no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago No. A tool already makes it unnatural. /S permalink fedilink source parent [–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that's fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different. There's not an effort in creation. There's human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 years ago Your reply has nothing to do with fair use doctrine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff...right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Good point. I say the software can be copywrite protected, but not the content the program generates. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And that is human effort, not the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago What's the difference? Humans are just the intent suppliers, the rest of the art is mostly made possible by software, whether photoshop or stable diffusion. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I don't agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why? In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it. But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd. IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) So if a tool is involved, it's no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago No. A tool already makes it unnatural. /S permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago No. A tool already makes it unnatural. /S permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that's fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different. There's not an effort in creation. There's human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 years ago Your reply has nothing to do with fair use doctrine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff...right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Good point. I say the software can be copywrite protected, but not the content the program generates. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And that is human effort, not the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that's fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different. There's not an effort in creation. There's human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 years ago Your reply has nothing to do with fair use doctrine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff...right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Good point. I say the software can be copywrite protected, but not the content the program generates. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And that is human effort, not the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 years ago Your reply has nothing to do with fair use doctrine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff...right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Good point. I say the software can be copywrite protected, but not the content the program generates. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And that is human effort, not the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Good point. I say the software can be copywrite protected, but not the content the program generates. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And that is human effort, not the AIs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago What's the difference? Humans are just the intent suppliers, the rest of the art is mostly made possible by software, whether photoshop or stable diffusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I don't agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why? In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it. But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd. IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply. permalink fedilink source parent