"Two years ago, I wrote about Jeff Dieschburg, an artist in Luxembourg who took [w]ork by others, made trivial edits, and won awards with paintings of the results."
Pour l'instant, j'ai supprimé l'image violant prétendument le droit d'auteur. Mais la société me réclame de l'argent pour avoir soi-disant privé l'auteur originel de l'image reprise en partie pour la couverture de ses droits pendant 7 ans (oui, oui, 7 ans !). L'image en question : https://stock.adobe.com/images/through-the-computer/44626264
Espérant ne pas devoir faire appel à un avocat pour défaire ces #copyright-trolleurs (quoique, un action de clase au niveau européen aurait... de la classe 😉)
2/2
#EU#AI#AIAct#Copyright#TDM: "This policy brief further develops the ideas expressed in our previous policy brief on this topic in light of the copyright provisions of the AI Act. Article 53(1c) of the AI Act requires providers of general-purpose AI models to implement policies to comply with EU copyright law, particularly, with the machine-readable opt-outs from the text and data mining (TDM) exception. This new Open Future policy brief explores what such a compliance policy might look like in practice. It provides an overview of the technical standards and services that are available to implement rights holders’ opt-outs in a way that is effective, scalable, and able to meet the needs of both rights holders and AI model developers.
The brief argues that to achieve this goal, four different aspects of machine-readable opt-outs require further attention: the identifiers for works, the vocabulary for opt-outs, the infrastructure used to communicate and respect opt-outs, and the effect of an opt-out once it has been recorded. For each of these four areas, there is a need to build consensus and converge on solutions that work for all stakeholders."
Sony Music is the prototype of the company that uses artists as mere puppets for getting the only thing it really wants: free money extracted through IP rents. It's a parasite that doesn't contribute at all to the promotion of arts and science.
#Sony#SonyMusic#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Copyright#IP: "Sony Music is sending warning letters to more than 700 artificial intelligence developers and music streaming services globally in the latest salvo in the music industry’s battle against tech groups ripping off artists.
The Sony Music letter, which has been seen by the Financial Times, expressly prohibits AI developers from using its music — which includes artists such as Harry Styles, Adele and Beyoncé — and opts out of any text and data mining of any of its content for any purposes such as training, developing or commercialising any AI system.
Sony Music is sending the letter to companies developing AI systems including OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Suno and Udio, according to those close to the group.
The world’s second-largest music group is also sending separate letters to streaming platforms, including Spotify and Apple, asking them to adopt “best practice” measures to protect artists and songwriters and their music from scraping, mining and training by AI developers without consent or compensation. It has asked them to update their terms of service, making it clear that mining and training on its content is not permitted.
Much as I dislike the theft of human labor that feeds many of the #generativeAI products we see today, I have to agree with @pluralistic that #copyright law is the wrong way to address the problem.
To frame the issue concretely: think of whom copyright law has benefited in the past, and then explain how it would benefit the individual creator when it is applied to #AI. (Hint: it won’t.)
Copyright law is already abused and extended to an absurd degree today. It already overreaches. It impoverishes society by putting up barriers to creation and allowing toll-collectors to exist between citizen artists and their audience.
Labor law is likely what we need to lean on. #unions and #guilds protect creators in a way that copyright cannot. Inequality and unequal bargaining power that lead to exploitation of artists and workers is what we need to address head-on.
That thing last month where the LAPD had their lawyers send a bogus DMCA takedown request to some people selling "Fuck the LAPD" t-shirts, and the t-shirt people's lawyer sent back a letter that literally just said, "LOL, no"? Well, here comes act 2: the "LOL, no" lawyers have sent a 🔥scathing🔥 letter to the other lawyers asking why they shouldn't seek attorney's fees.
esiste una guida di legalese per #peertube ? mi spiego meglio, sappiamo che possiamo coricare contenuti coperti da #copyright e ci siamo, ma spezzoni di contenuti? magari presi dalle trasmissioni televisive, e posso mettere qualche intervento politico? preso da fonte ufficiale, quindi dal canale streaming tv del parlamento, e per quanto riguarda i trailer di film? qualcuno ha le risposte? #fediverso
Just because #copyright won't fix the creative labor market [and save is from AI], it doesn't follow that nothing will. If we're worried about #labor issues, we can look to labor law to improve our conditions.
#AI#AITraining#Copyright#GenerativeAI#IP#Creativity#Art: "Creating an individual bargainable copyright over training will not improve the material conditions of artists' lives – all it will do is change the relative shares of the value we create, shifting some of that value from tech companies that hate us and want us to starve to entertainment companies that hate us and want us to starve.
As an artist, I'm foursquare against anything that stands in the way of making art. As an artistic worker, I'm entirely committed to things that help workers get a fair share of the money their work creates, feed their families and pay their rent.
I think today's AI art is bad, and I think tomorrow's AI art will probably be bad, but even if you disagree (with either proposition), I hope you'll agree that we should be focused on making sure art is legal to make and that artists get paid for it.
Just because copyright won't fix the creative labor market, it doesn't follow that nothing will. If we're worried about labor issues, we can look to labor law to improve our conditions."
#SocialMedia#USA#Twitter#Copyright#WebScraping: "A US district judge William Alsup has dismissed Elon Musk's X Corp's lawsuit against Bright Data, a data-scraping company accused of improperly accessing X (formerly Twitter) systems and violating both X terms and state laws when scraping and selling data.
X sued Bright Data to stop the company from scraping and selling X data to academic institutes and businesses, including Fortune 500 companies.
According to Alsup, X failed to state a claim while arguing that companies like Bright Data should have to pay X to access public data posted by X users."
On Warner Bros (Greta Gerwig?) filing a copyright takedown on this patriarchy discussion:
"you made the fucking movie to get a message across and to get people talking and someone posts a thoughtful video essay about the central issue of the film and you fucking take it down?"
I don't really watch Dr Who, but this was mildly interesting.
"The hefty price tag attached to the use of the [Beatles' discography] means that most productions opt not to use them at all. Speaking with Empire, Doctor Who showrunner Rusell T Davies stated that this issue is what inspired the story behind "The Devil's Chord" in the first place."
#OpenAI#ChatGPT#Copyright#IP#Reddit: "OpenAI, a company that has indiscriminately scraped the internet and vast amounts of knowledge and creative works created by humans to build a company valued at roughly $80 billion, has made what Reddit described as a copyright complaint against the ChatGPT subreddit because it uses OpenAI’s logo.
Moderators of the subreddit posted a screenshot of a message that they said they had received from Reddit. The message reads “Hello Mods, We have received a copyright complaint from openai.com alleging unauthorized use of their copyrighted logos in r/ChatGPT. The 'subreddit profile image' does make use of the copyrighted content, which can lead to user confusion: please address the unauthorized copyrighted elements by May 16.” The message goes on to say that the moderators need to remove the OpenAI logo from the subreddit profile and reply to Reddit confirming that the logo has been removed." https://www.404media.co/openai-files-copyright-claim-against-chatgpt-subreddit/
There are doubts about the copyright of AI-generated music.
Should AI music be subject to copyright?
If AI music is subject to copyright, imagine a scenario where AI generates billions of different random songs, across the scale of diversity, this music will be published, it will have maybe 0-2 listens, but it will be officially released.
In this way, the owner of this AI will reserve all possible new music in the world for himself.
He will be able to sue every new artist for plagiarism, because what is the chance that his AI did not generate something similar, at such a scale of generation?
What if AI music is not subject to copyright? If, for example, they were automatically in the public domain?
An almost identical scenario may occur, also AI will generate billions of various random songs, on the entire scale of diversity, this music will be published... but this time artists will no longer be able to profit from music that will be in some way similar to that generated by AI, and any new music, will be similar to those billions of songs generated by AI.
Even the artist's sense of not having created something original could be demotivating for him, even if it were established that AI music is not in the public domain and it would be possible to duplicate and monetize music similar to that generated by AI.
And then another scenario may arise, that pseudo-artists will deliberately review finished AI-generated songs, and will "take over"/occupy the copyrights to these songs. It's also not a pretty scenario.
So what, ban AI music and force it to be removed from the Internet? Drive AI music underground?
However, the current law is adapted to people who have limited ability to produce music.
In fact, even before generative music, there was a problem of songs being similar to each other, and about a hundred years of universal copyright was enough.
Now we're firing up the roller skates.
Should AI music be subject to copyright?
There are doubts about the copyright of AI-generated music....