Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • Flying SquidEnglish
    1•10 months ago

    Again, VCRs and hard drives can’t create content. They can only capture content. AI can create content, but it is not always original. Which is the problem. No one is trying to sue them over things that are credibly original.

    It is no more legal for you to tell an AI to make you a picture of the Joker as it is to ask a human artist to do it. And if the human artist did it, WB/DC would be within their rights to take them to court because it would violate both trademark and copyright. They usually don’t, but they are within their rights.

    You can ask a VCR or a hard drive to draw you a picture of The Joker all day. They won’t because they can’t.

    If AI was only capable of creating original artworks, this would not be an issue.

      • Flying SquidEnglish
        1•10 months ago

        Nope. Camcorders do not create content. They record content. Camcorders do not create anything. That is a ridiculous claim. I cannot point a camcorder at you and have it make you look like Heath Ledger.

        AI creates content. It can make things that literally don’t exist. If I tell it to make me Heath Ledger as The Joker fighting Jack Nicholson as the Joker, it can create it. A camcorder can’t. A VCR can’t. A hard drive can’t. I have no idea why you don’t understand the difference between creating content and recording content.

        I also said nothing about the AI itself being illegal, so I also have no idea where you’re getting that from. I said it is violating copyright and trademark when it creates such images. Because it is.

        Hence the lawsuits. Hence the lack of such lawsuits against camcorders, VCRs and hard drives.

          • Flying SquidEnglish
            1•10 months ago

            Yes, there was a lawsuit against VCRs. It had nothing to do with original content.

            AI trains on images (fair use)

            Nope, that is not in any legal definition of fair use.

            same as a brain, hard drive, VCR and an HDD.

            What prompt do I enter to get a VCR to make me a picture of Jack Nicholson’s Joker fighting Heath Ledger’s Joker?

            Do I press both rewind and fast forward at once to access the secret content generation menu?

              • Flying SquidEnglish
                1•10 months ago

                You dress up and film it with your buddies and record it to a second gen tape lol?

                Which means it is not creating content. It is recording content. Which was my point.

                And yes training is fair use, it better be, I train my brain on images all the time.

                Please back this up. Your brain is not a computer. Furthermore, even if it was, someone else would be training it and you cannot legally train someone else on copyrighted material that you have not licensed, which is why schools have to license textbooks and a teacher that teaches from an unlicensed textbook can be sued. That’s the entire impetus for the Open Textbook Library. The Open Textbook Library would literally not need to exist if training material was not protected by copyright.

                You see, the problem here is that you keep claiming things that are the opposite of what these companies are getting sued for doing. And yet those suits aren’t getting laughed out of court. Doesn’t that tell you that maybe your ideas of how the law works here are wrong?

                I have been studying U.S. copyright and trademark law for over 15 years. How long have you been studying it?

                  • Flying SquidEnglish
                    1•10 months ago

                    Recording is creation

                    Not according to the law. And if you disagree, find me the law that defines recording as creation.

                    Like the lawsuit against Stable Diffusion & Midjourney? You know, the class action one that was dismissed precisely because the end work (output) was non-infringing, and training itself (and by extension, the tech) was not an infringement?

                    One of many. One getting dismissed does not equal all getting dismissed.

                    Sony vs United Studios

                    Irrelevant to this subject. Original content was not at issue.

                    I swear you reddit refugee armchair experts need to go back.

                    This was literally directly connected to my own business for 15 years. One I ran legally. Because I made sure to study copyright and trademark law as much as possible so my company wouldn’t ever violate it.

                    And since I’m a ‘refugee armchair expert,’ from where did you get your law degree? Feel free to answer unless you want to just insult me again.