...for what they call “a straightforward and deliberate act of theft that constitutes copyright infringement.”The lawsuits over AI training show no signs of abating.https://aboutblaw.com/bkv0
>>107682639>literally who against trillion dollar companiesgood luck with that, poorfags
>Phillip Shitskin
>>107682668its copyright infringement you can represent your self in how easy it is.
If I licensed a drawing under creative commons share-alike non-commercial license and an AI scraped it, would that make everything the AI generates creative commons as well? I mean that's how it works if a human took my drawing and transformed it so why not the AI.
>>107682668>Leave the corporation alone!That isn't how it works.
>>107682639Good>regular guy torrents a few gb worth of books>got the whole legal book thrown at him>meta "they trust me, dumb fucks" torrents several terabytes of books from libgen>*cricket noises*
>>107682818Library of Congress' current policy is that AI generated works are placed directly into the Public Domain.
>>107683128But why tho? Could AI take GPL code, refactor it, and now it's public domain?
>>107683128'ased
>>107683175Firstly let me start with this: Stallman is a Communist so he actually would prefer we get rid of Copyright altogether and make everything Public Domain. GPL is merely a legal scheme to play within the Copyright system.Second, the Constitution is very clear. Congress has the power to grant authors FOR A LIMITED TIME exclusive copyright. In a Public Domain country, like America, the final state of ALL CREATIVE WORKS is Public Domain, Congress merely gives you temporary permission to license it how you see fit.Under the current LoC rules, yes, you could train on GPL code and make it Public Domain. But you could also train on Proprietary code, and now its Public Domain also.No, the LoC rules aren't the final ruling on the Law. Congress and SCOTUS are allowed to come up with complete insanity, which will likely happen.>>107682936>>107682865That is how this works. The SCOTUS will get a case, and be like "lol actually it's fair use for you, but not anyone else."That's what Oracle v. Google was.Instead of Congress actually coming up with rules and holding everyone to the same standard, or the SCOTUS actually making a legal decision, that is what we will get.What needed to be decided in Oracle v. Google was whether APIs are copyrightable or not, and they refused to decide anything at all.
>>107682818>I mean that's how it works if a human took my drawing and transformed it so why not the AI.Learning to draw from looking at works of artists that came before me counts as "transforming a work" now?
>>107682865in your head canon fantasy what do you think will happen here?you think a judge will be like>give these poor people 500 billion each, lets bankrupt those stupid AI companies! *standing ovation in the courtroom*no you dipshit nothing will happen.
>>107683269You are a living, breathing, thinking (hopefully) person. You learning to draw is not the same thing as a machine taking my drawing, applying some math to it, and generating an image. It's the reason why simply rewording something you read on wikipedia is plagiarism.
>>107683260>But you could also train on Proprietary code, and now its Public Domain also.Very interesting. So if someone leaked classified documents of the F-22 Raptor's missile tracking firmware, I would go to jail for publishing it on my github but if an AI rewrites and publishes it then it becomes public domain?
>>107683303Sir, it seems you've forgotten what plagiarism actually is......
>>107683342Explain? Rewording without attribution is plagiarism.
>>107682639The Chinese are laughing at us self-sabotaging
>>107683269always has been
>>107683303>You learning to draw is not the same thing as a machine...Then why are we comparing machines to humans in the first place? Didn't read the rest of your post.
>>107683421Not as far as copyright laws have been applied.
>>107683371Copying it word for word and then presenting the information as your own is plagiarism (if you whip text straight from Wikipedia without providing Wikipedia as a source, then teachers basically consider that lying by omission). Taking existing information and rewording it in your own words, source or not, is not plagiarism. By your logic, any artist that has ever been inspired by someone else's style is "stealing" because they didn't give them credit for the inspiration
>>107683467>why are we comparing machines to humans in a discussion about machine generated content vs human generated contentDid you get lost while scrolling or something? Learning a skill is not the same as running an algorithm through a computer. Even if you learned to draw with the goal of copying someone else's style entirely, your works are still your own as a result of your imagination. Machine learning can't function without transforming what it's trained on.
>>107683630your imagination was trained on stolen data
>>107683630>>107682818>I mean that's how it works if a human took my drawing and transformed it so why not the AI.The post I first replied to compared humans to AI.
>>107683545>Taking existing information and rewording it in your own words, source or not, is not plagiarism.Have you ever gone to school? Every teacher will hammer it into your head that rewording without credit is plagiarism.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Forms_of_academic_plagiarism>Re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources.Mere inspiration isn't enough to say you're stealing an idea.
