Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not so sure that’s true, there have been several recent rulings that all reinforce that copyright can only be asserted on the output of actual humans. This even goes back to before the AI stuff, when PETA sued over those monkey selfies. It is quite clear that the output of an AI does not, itself, qualify for copyright protection, because it is not human.

    Maybe if a human edits or works with the AI output, the end result might qualify. But then you also have to ask about what went into the AI composition. Here is where it gets less certain. The case of the Monkey Selfie is much clearer: the monkey stole the camera and took its own picture, and that creation was not derived from any other copyrighted work. But these AI are trained on a wide range of copyrighted works, and very few of those works were licensed for that purpose. I doubt that sucking everything into AI will be seen as a fair use of those works. This is different than a search engine, which ultimately steers the user toward the original work. This uses the original work to create something new (and inherently uncopyrightable, since a bot did it), and because of the way AI works it is impossible to credit the original sources.

    Congress may have to step in and clarify this, but is probably not interested unless they can use it to harass Hunter Biden.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was under the impression we were talking about using copyright to prevent a work from being used to train a generative model. There’s nothing in copyright that says anything about training anything. I’m not even convinced there should be.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, of course there’s nothing that can be used to prevent training an AI, just like there’s nothing preventing monkeys from stealing cameras and taking pictures. It’s what happens next that matters.

        The Internet Archive didn’t get sued over copyright, even though it had electronic copies of lots and lots of copyrighted works (and even let people “check out” copies), until they changed their distribution model to allow unlimited lending. Nothing about how they gathered their works changed, it was the change in distribution that got them sued.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That’s the topic at hand.

          Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The suit alleges that the AI image-generators violate the rights of millions of artists by ingesting huge troves of digital images and then producing derivative works that compete against the originals.

            The artists say they are not inherently opposed to AI, but they don’t want to be exploited by it. They are seeking class-action damages and a court order to stop companies from exploiting artistic works without consent.

            It says right in the article that they’re suing over the training and the commercial use of the output. Their lawyer obviously felt that it was essential to include both parts of that, and I think it’s because simply using a copyrighted work to train AI may not be infringing, but using it and the selling the output is.

            I just don’t think you can separate how the AI is trained from what the company intends to do with the trained AI. If they intend to sell their output, then I don’t think that will be allowed in current copyright law.

            • joe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it’s released for general consumption.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the article is very good and well-written, and the author is probably more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, but I think it’s a glaring omission that they never mention the idea that copyright can only be asserted on the output of humans. Even the latest guidance from the Copyright Office suggests that the raw output of an AI doesn’t qualify under current law, and in order for AI to be copyrightable it needs to have a human apply some creative endeavor to it.

        https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/us-issues-guidance-on-copyrighting-ai-assisted-artwork/

        The author suggests that a ruling that an AI can’t synthesize images from multiple sources might affect human artists who use multiple sources as inspiration. But those humans can look at 5 different paintings, create a 6th which is inspired by (but not identical to) the other 5, and get copyright protection for that, to protect their creative efforts. AI cannot, under current law. So when an AI combines five different paintings, who owns the copyright on it? The Monkey Selfie was ruled to be in the Public Domain. But AI can’t be treated similarly; It seems absurd that you can put art through an AI “copyright wash” and end up with something free of copyright.

        (And it looks like in the latest guidance from the Copyright Office linked above, they say that future applications will require the author to disclose whether they used AI to generate the content, and "Any failure to accurately reflect the role of AI in copyrighted works could result in “losing the benefits of the registration,”)

        Even after reading that well-written article, I stand by my assertion that current copyright law simply doesn’t protect the output of non-humans, and Congress will ultimately have to step in and define parameters for it. Until that happens, artists who can prove their work was used to train an AI have a legitimate case that they are being infringed upon every time an AI makes output that is similar.

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s important to remember the Copyright Office guidance isn’t law. Their guidance reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience, it isn’t binding in the courts or other parties. Guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone. They are the lowest rung on the ladder for deciding what law means.

          The author suggests that a ruling that an AI can’t synthesize images from multiple sources might affect human artists who use multiple sources as inspiration. But those humans can look at 5 different paintings, create a 6th which is inspired by (but not identical to) the other 5, and get copyright protection for that, to protect their creative efforts. AI cannot, under current law. So when an AI combines five different paintings, who owns the copyright on it? The Monkey Selfie was ruled to be in the Public Domain. But AI can’t be treated similarly; It seems absurd that you can put art through an AI “copyright wash” and end up with something free of copyright.

          You said it yourself in the first paragraph, humans using machines have always been the copyright holders of any qualifying work they create. AI works are human works. AI can’t be authors or hold copyright.

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the Copyright Office 's statements are not law, but they are the ones who execute the law and who process copyright registrations, so it’s not like their statements are meaningless. They won’t change unless there is litigation that forces a change, or Congress changes the law, or maybe different leadership gets appointed with a different interpretation. Their guidance is all that ordinary copyright registrants can act on, without incurring the expense of a lawsuit (or buying a Senator).

            • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They won’t change unless there is litigation that forces a change, or Congress changes the law, or maybe different leadership gets appointed with a different interpretation.

              This isn’t true, the office is proactively exploring and evolving its understanding of this topic and are actively seeking expert and public feedback. You shouldn’t expect this to be their final word on the subject.

              • dhork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, yeah, if the office decides to change their own interpretation based on feedback, they will. But that’s in their own control, while the other things I cited are ways for outsiders to force a change.