173
AI Didn't Break Copyright Law, It Just Exposed How Broken It Already Was (jasonwillems.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 9 months ago* (13 children)

It doesn't break copyright laws because training something on any kind of data, as long as the data was legally obtained, is legal (this includes scrapping publicly available data).

You can't generate a sonic picture and sell it for the same reason you can't draw sonic in Photoshop and sell it. These are tools and it's up to the user to use them in a legal way.

Fan art is actually illegal, companies let it be because they get instantly thrashed by fans if they complain.

Copyright laws are broken but in the opposite way. Can we rename this sub to "How to bootlick the copyright machine"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    It's weird how AI has turned so much of the internet from its generally anti-copyright stance. I've seen threads in piracy and datahoarding communities that were riddled with "won't someone please think of the copyright!" Posts raging about how awful AI was.

    I maintain the same view I always have. Copyright is indeed broken, because of how overly restrictive and expansive it has become. Most people long ago lost sight of what it's actually for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The AI topic is botted massively, almost as much as political topics.

    I don't know who would benefit from a large portion of the Western youth being made to be disinterested in this emerging technology, but it isn't the Western economies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Copyright companies and big AI. Google stands to profit massively if they are the only ones with the budget for a "legal" LLM. In any other context, strengthening copyright laws would be met with riots but they have managed to convince a good portion of the population that it's somehow in their best interest in the space of a year.

    That or China (probably both)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    In the vein that LLM are just a tool? Wouldn't it be legally a problem, if a photoshop filter had rules specifically to generate Sonic art?

    Btw, why is that blue hedgehog still a thing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Fan art is not illegal. As long as you're not selling it, it would generally fall under fair use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 9 months ago* (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Just to clarify, somebody suing another party doesn't automatically mean that party broke any laws. Big companies especially will sooner sue the little guy even if they did nothing legally wrong because the know the little guy most likely won't have the resources to fight it, even if they would have won.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I was adding onto it. Cool your jets. We're in agreement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    https://cbaatthebar.chicagobar.org/2022/11/11/the-fine-line-between-fan-art-fan-fiction-and-finding-yourself-sued/

    It's copyright infringements but like I said, most won't bother fans not making a dime. There's economic advantages to having fans create and distribute your content for free. A company can choose to copyright strike anything with their characters in it at anytime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Skimming the article seems to affirm that the danger is profiting off of fan works, not the works themselves. Just because a company can sue you over it (even in situations where you made no profit off of it), that doesn't mean you broke any laws. You can be sued for anything, its up to the court to determine if a law was broken.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Fan fiction and fan art, without appropriate permissions or licenses, are usually an infringement of the right of the copyright holder to prepare and license derivative works based on the original. Copyrights allow their owners to decide how their works can be used, including creating new derivative works off of the original product.

    Seems pretty clear. It's at the discretion of the owner. The profit aspect doesn't matter in terms of the law, it just makes it likely that companies will go to court over it.

    Additionally, usually as long as the fan content is non-commercial, it is not a problem with copyright holders.

    Notice how it says with copyright holders and not with copyright laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)