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.
Są wątpliwości, co do praw autorskich, generowanej przez AI muzyki.
Czy muzyka AI powinna podlegać prawom autorskim?
Jeśli muzyka AI będzie podlegać prawom autorskim, to wyobraź sobie scenariusz, gdzie AI wygeneruje miliardy najróżniejszych losowych utworów, na całej skali różnorodności, ta muzyka zostanie opublikowana, będzie miała może 0-2 odsłuchania, ale oficjalnie będzie wydana.
W ten sposób właściciel tego AI zarezerwuje dla siebie wszelką możliwą nową muzykę świata.
Będzie mógł pozywać każdego nowego artystę o plagiat z automatu, bo jaka szansa, że nie jego AI nie wygenerował czegoś podobnego, przy takiej skali generowania?
A co, jeśli muzyka AI nie będzie podlegać prawom autorskim? Jeśli np. byłyby automatycznie w domenie publicznej?
Może zaistnieć niemal identyczny scenariusz, również AI wygeneruje miliardy najróżniejszych losowych utworów, na całej skali różnorodności, ta muzyka zostanie opublikowana... ale tym razem artyści już nie będą mogli czerpać zysków z muzyki, która będzie w jakiś sposób podobna, do tej wygenerowanej przez AI, a każda nowa muzyka, będzie podobna do tych miliardów piosenek, wygenerowanych przez AI.
Nawet samo poczucie artysty, że nie stworzył czegoś oryginalnego może być dla niego demotywujące, nawet jeśli ustalono by, że muzyka AI nie jest w domenie publicznej, i można by dublować i zarabiać na muzyce podobnej do tej wygenerowanej przez AI.
A wtedy może zaistnieć kolejny scenariusz, że pseudo artyści będą celowo przeglądać gotowe utwory wygenerowane przez AI, i będą "przejmowali"/zajmowali prawa autorskie do tych utworów. To też niezbyt piękny scenariusz.
To co, zakazać muzyki AI, zmuszać do usuwania jej z sieci? Zepchnąć muzykę AI do podziemia?
Dotychczasowe prawo jest jednak dostosowane do ludzi, którzy mają ograniczoną zdolność produkowania muzyki.
Tak naprawdę jeszcze przed generatywną muzyką, był problem podobieństwa piosenek do siebie, wystarczyło gdzieś sto lat powszechnych praw autorskich.
Teraz odpalamy wrotki.
Hatte so eben Tandoor als alternatieve online Rezepte-Datenbank entdeckt und wird ua von @adminforge gehostet. Doch deren Lizenz irritiert mich, denn auf deren Instanzen steht klar ein Copyright-Bestand vom Inhalt aber deren Code-Lizensen sind GNU AGPL 3.0. Was ist es nun oder verstehe ich diesbezüglich was nicht, wie seht ihr es?
Vi torna che il #copyright insista non sulle idee ma sull'espressione delle idee e però la parodia sia libera anche quando imita il parodiato, mentre la traduzione, che cambia l'espressione delle idee, no? Questa contraddizione è dovuta a un'accidentalità storico-teatrale, e ne potremmo fare tranquillamente a meno se il diritto d'autore si liberasse della cosiddetta proprietà intellettuale. #Croce#Scarpetta#D'Annunzio https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.11163102
Should AI music be subject to copyright?
There are doubts about the copyright of AI-generated music....