Watching a video or reading an article by a human isn’t copyright infringement, why then if an “AI” do it then it is? I believe the copyright infringement it’s made by the prompt so by the user not the tool.
When a school professor “prompts” you to write an essay and you, the “tool” go consume copyrighted material and plagiarize it in the production of your essay is the infringement made by the professor?
If you read a book or watch a movie and get inspired by it to create something new and different, it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement?
If that were the case the majority of stuff nowadays it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement, I mean generally people get inspired by someone or something.
You do realize that AI is just a marketing term, right? None of these models learn, have intelligence or create truly original work. As a matter of fact, if people don’t continue to create original content, these models would stagnate or enter a feedback loop that would poison themselves with their own erroneous responses.
There’s a long history of this and you might find some helpful information in looking at “transformative use” of copyrighted materials. Google Books is a famous case where the technology company won the lawsuit.
The real problem is that LLMs constantly spit out copyrighted material verbatim. That’s not transformative. And it’s a near-impossible problem to solve while maintaining the utility. Because these things aren’t actually AI, they’re just monstrous statistical correlation databases generated from an enormous data set.
Much of the utility from them will become targeted applications where the training comes from public/owned datasets. I don’t think the copyright case is going to end well for these companies…or at least they’re going to have to gradually chisel away parts of their training data, which will have an outsized impact as more and more AI generated material finds its way into the training data sets.
Fair use depends on a lot, and just being a small amount doesn’t factor in. It’s the actual use. Small amounts just often fly under the nose of legal teams.
Fair use is a four factor test amount used is a factor but a low amount being used doesn’t strictly mean something is fair use. You could use a single frame of a movie and have it not qualify as fair use.
This is what people fundamentally don’t understand about intelligence, artificial or otherwise. People feel like their intelligence is 100% “theirs”. While I certainly would advocate that a person owns their intelligence, It didn’t spawn from nothing.
You’re standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before you. You take a prehistoric man or an alien that hasn’t had any of the same experiences you’ve had, they won’t be able to function in this world. It’s not because they are any dumber than you. It’s because you absorbed the hive mind of the society you live in. Everyone’s racing to slap their brand on stuff to copyright it to get ahead and carve out their space.
“No you can’t tell that story, It’s mine.”
“That art is so derivative.”
But copyright was only meant to protect something for a short period in order to monetize it; to adapt the value of knowledge for our capital market. Our world can’t grow if all knowledge is owned forever and isn’t able to be used when even THINKING about new ideas.
ANY VERSION OF INTELLIGENCE YOU WOULD WANT TO INTERACT WITH MUST CONSUME OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PRODUCE TRANSFORMATIONS OF IT.
That’s all you do.
Imagine how useless someone would be who’d never interacted with anything copyrighted, patented, or trademarked.
That’s not a very agreeable take. Just get rid of patents and copyrights altogether and your point dissolves itself into nothing. The core difference being derivative works by humans can respect the right to privacy of original creators.
Deep learning bullshit software however will just regurgitate creator’s contents, sometimes unrecognizable, but sometimes outright steal their likeness or individual style to create content that may be associated with the original creators.
what you are in effect doing, is likening learning from the ideas of others to a deep learning “AI” using images for creating revenge porn, to give a drastic example.
Watching a video or reading an article by a human isn’t copyright infringement, why then if an “AI” do it then it is? I believe the copyright infringement it’s made by the prompt so by the user not the tool.
When a school professor “prompts” you to write an essay and you, the “tool” go consume copyrighted material and plagiarize it in the production of your essay is the infringement made by the professor?
If you quote the sources and write it with your own words I believe it isn’t, AFAIK “AI” already do that.
It definitely does not cite sources and use it’s own words in all cases - especially in visual media generation.
And in the proposed scenario I did write the student plagiarizes the copyrighted material.
If you read a book or watch a movie and get inspired by it to create something new and different, it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement?
If that were the case the majority of stuff nowadays it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement, I mean generally people get inspired by someone or something.
You do realize that AI is just a marketing term, right? None of these models learn, have intelligence or create truly original work. As a matter of fact, if people don’t continue to create original content, these models would stagnate or enter a feedback loop that would poison themselves with their own erroneous responses.
AIs don’t think. They copy with extra steps.
There’s a long history of this and you might find some helpful information in looking at “transformative use” of copyrighted materials. Google Books is a famous case where the technology company won the lawsuit.
The real problem is that LLMs constantly spit out copyrighted material verbatim. That’s not transformative. And it’s a near-impossible problem to solve while maintaining the utility. Because these things aren’t actually AI, they’re just monstrous statistical correlation databases generated from an enormous data set.
Much of the utility from them will become targeted applications where the training comes from public/owned datasets. I don’t think the copyright case is going to end well for these companies…or at least they’re going to have to gradually chisel away parts of their training data, which will have an outsized impact as more and more AI generated material finds its way into the training data sets.
How constantly does it spit out copyrighted material? Is there data on that?
So your question is “is plagiarism plagiarism”?
No, that is not the question nor a reasonable interpretation of it.
Copilot lists its sources. The problem is half of them are completely made up and if you click on the links they take you to the wrong pages
If you read an article, then copy parts of that article into a new article, that’s copyright infringement. Same with ais.
Depends on how much is copied, if it’s a small amount it’s fair use.
Fair use depends on a lot, and just being a small amount doesn’t factor in. It’s the actual use. Small amounts just often fly under the nose of legal teams.
Fair use is a four factor test amount used is a factor but a low amount being used doesn’t strictly mean something is fair use. You could use a single frame of a movie and have it not qualify as fair use.
What does this human is going to do with this reading ? Are they going to produce something by using part of this book or this article ?
If yes, that’s copyright infringement.
This is what people fundamentally don’t understand about intelligence, artificial or otherwise. People feel like their intelligence is 100% “theirs”. While I certainly would advocate that a person owns their intelligence, It didn’t spawn from nothing.
You’re standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before you. You take a prehistoric man or an alien that hasn’t had any of the same experiences you’ve had, they won’t be able to function in this world. It’s not because they are any dumber than you. It’s because you absorbed the hive mind of the society you live in. Everyone’s racing to slap their brand on stuff to copyright it to get ahead and carve out their space.
“No you can’t tell that story, It’s mine.” “That art is so derivative.”
But copyright was only meant to protect something for a short period in order to monetize it; to adapt the value of knowledge for our capital market. Our world can’t grow if all knowledge is owned forever and isn’t able to be used when even THINKING about new ideas.
ANY VERSION OF INTELLIGENCE YOU WOULD WANT TO INTERACT WITH MUST CONSUME OUR KNOWLEDGE AND PRODUCE TRANSFORMATIONS OF IT.
That’s all you do.
Imagine how useless someone would be who’d never interacted with anything copyrighted, patented, or trademarked.
That’s not a very agreeable take. Just get rid of patents and copyrights altogether and your point dissolves itself into nothing. The core difference being derivative works by humans can respect the right to privacy of original creators.
Deep learning bullshit software however will just regurgitate creator’s contents, sometimes unrecognizable, but sometimes outright steal their likeness or individual style to create content that may be associated with the original creators.
what you are in effect doing, is likening learning from the ideas of others to a deep learning “AI” using images for creating revenge porn, to give a drastic example.