Just a brief reminder that every #AWS VM/container/etc you give a public #IPv4#IP address to now costs you $3.65/month more than in 2023. AWS charges per IP-address per-hour.
Many maintain that their broad use of copyrighted material is legal under the doctrine of "fair use," which courts apply using a complex four-part standard.
However, as Giordano notes, "the public status of copyrighted material" is not one of those factors.
A decade ago, the Google Books decision held that Google's use of "text snippets" to catalogue published works was an acceptable fair use, and AI companies often point to Google's win to back their argument.
The second argument is that copyright is not an issue in AI training because AI systems don't copy material: They just "learn" from it the way a human might.
Reality check: AI companies often refuse to say which "publicly available" data they are using, with OpenAI and others describing their sources as a competitive trade secret."
Never enter any information that would qualify as a trade secret into an AI chat bot, regardless of what the terms of service of the chat bot provides.
#AI#GenerativeAI#Music#Suno#Copyright#IP: "Suno claims that its platform enables “anyone to make great music”. This is typically achieved via ChatGPT-style text prompts, or by users inputting lyrics. Suno then generates melodies, harmonies, and/or complete compositions based on these cues.
Another reason Suno is big news? Late last year, Microsoft announced a partnership with Suno, via which users of Microsoft’s Copilot can use the Suno software to create music.
Unsurprisingly, Ed Newton-Rex has been spending a fair amount of time with Suno of late. He’s been left intrigued by the platform’s output which, he says, appears to be directly, ahem, inspired by some of the biggest musical stars in history.
#TikToks Daten-Dilemma: Zwischen Innovation u. Überwachung..
.. Datenstaubsauger biblischen Ausmaßes“, der nicht nur auf Basis von Geräte- und Netzwerkinformationen, sondern auch über #SIM-Karten u #IP-Adressen Standortdaten seiner Nutzer sammelt.
@cassis Tu te rapelles notre conversation sur le #DHCP et les appareils en #statiques avec des adresses #IP dans la plage #dhcp
Devine le lièvre que je viens de lever...
Wikipedia notes that a rough English translation of the album name is; Watch out! The tram is coming. In other trivia, indie nerds who specialise in the 1990s might notice that the band name is taken from a song title off Now I'm a Cowboy, by British band The Auteurs.
"From my part, I believe the very concept of exclusive intellectual property with respect to recorded music has come to a natural end, or something like an end. Technology has brought to a head a need to embrace the meaning of the word “release”, as in bird or fart. It is no longer possible to maintain control over digitised material and I don’t believe the public good is served by trying to."
#AI#GenerativeAI#UK#AITraining#Copyright#IP: "Britain’s biggest publishing houses have written to dozens of technology companies, warning them that they must pay if they want to use content from books, journals and papers to build their artificial intelligence (AI) models.
The Publishers Association said it was of “deep concern” to its members, who include Penguin Random House, HarperCollins and Oxford University Press, that it believes“vast amounts of copyright-protected works” are being fed by tech businesses into their generative AI programs without authorisation.
Among the 50 recipients of the letter, which was sent last week, were Google DeepMind, Meta, the owner of Facebook, and OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Those three companies have been approached for comment." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-use-our-books-in-your-ai-programs-publishers-warn-big-tech-8ttq0n6hq
#AI#GenerativeAI#Copyright#IP#Plagiarism: "The test results showed GPT-4 completed book texts 60% of the time, and generated the first passage 26% of the time. Meanwhile, Claude completed book texts 16% of the time, but generated the first-passage 0% of the time. Mixtral generated the first passage of books when prompted 38% of the time, and completed passages 6% of the time. Llama generated first passages and completed texts 10% of the time.
“Perhaps what was surprising is that we found that OpenAI’s GPT-4, which is arguably the most powerful model that’s being used by a lot of companies and also individual developers, produced copyrighted content on 44% of prompts that we constructed,” Rebecca Qian, cofounder and chief technology officer at Patronus AI, told CNBC.
OpenAI, Mistral, Meta, and Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment."
lmao. I got a DMCA takedown notice for my Colordle game yesterday ( https://colordle.lina.garden ), along with everyone else who forked the Reactle repo. today 404 is reporting on how bullshit it is! 🤣🖕
#Etsy#FanFiction#Copyright#IP: "Etsy sellers are turning free fanfiction into printed and bound physical books, and listing them for sale on online marketplaces for more than $100 per book. It’s a problem that’s rattling the authors of those fanfics, as well as their fans and readers.
Several sellers, easily found on Etsy and very popular, each with hundreds of five-star reviews, are selling copies of fanfiction taken from sites like Archive of Our Own (Ao3) and reselling them as bound books. The average price of these bound copies is around $149. Some sellers claim that they’re simply covering the cost of materials, while others just sell the books, usually with the fanfiction writers’ Ao3 username on the cover.
This is hitting the “Dramione” fandom—which pairs Hermoine and Draco from the Harry Potter series—particularly hard, because this type of fanfic is extremely popular on Etsy. “All the Young Dudes,” a massively popular Harry Potter fanfic by MsKingBean89, is being sold by multiple sellers, including one that mostly sells bamboo and rattan handicrafts. “Manacled” by SenLiYu is another wildly popular one that’s been turned into merch and bound books on Etsy.
Some authors are deleting their works from the internet altogether to prevent book binding resellers stealing them."
#AI#GenerativeAI#China#Copyright#IP: "China ruled on a case of infringement of copyright by an AI-generated service, the first effective ruling of its kind globally, which provided a judicial answer to the dilemma of whether the content generated by AI service providers infringes on copyright, media reported on Monday.
According to the 21st Century Business Herald, the Guangzhou Internet Court ruled that the an AI company had infringed the plaintiff's copyright and adaptation rights to the Ultraman works in the process of providing generative AI services, and should bear relevant civil liability.
The protagonist of this case was the super IP Ultraman. In this case, the copyright owner of the "Ultraman" works exclusively authorized the copyright of the series images to the plaintiff, while the defendant company operated a website, providing services with AI conversation and AI-generated painting functions."
Just spent at least two hours deleting all of my work from Tumblr, before their AI scraping shit hits the fan, although it's probably too late. In that case, the deletion functions as a gesture of protest.
This shameless large-scale intellectual property theft by greedy tech business assholes everywhere is starting to make the internet pretty annoying. 😖
😂 Elon Musk just crawled from under a rock and discovered something that has been bothering people for years. It is just too funny not to share this one.
#AI#GenerativeAI#Chatbots#ChatGPT#Plagiarism#Copyright#IP: "Copyleaks attempts to turn detecting plagiarism from "I know it when I see it" into an exact science.
The company uses a proprietary scoring method that aggregates the rate of identical text, minor changes, paraphrased text, and other factors and then assigns content a "similarity score."
Per the report, for GPT-3.5, "45.7% of all outputs contained identical text, 27.4% contained minor changes, and 46.5% had paraphrased text."
"A score of 0% signifies that all of the content is original, whereas a score of 100% means that none of the content is original," per the report.
Zoom in: Copyleaks asked GPT-3.5 for around a thousand outputs, each around 400 words, across 26 subjects.
The individual GPT-3.5 output with the highest similarity score was in computer science (100%), followed by physics (92%), and psychology (88%)."
#AI#GenerativeAI#GeneratedImages#Copyright#AITraining#IP: "There’s a bit of a creative working ecosystem where there are natural cycles to someone getting their start to then having enough experience to gain a higher level in their career and make a living out of it. All of those doors are now starting to close because of generative AI. With the works that generative AI makes, the metric isn’t whether something is artistic or has quality, because if that were the case then people would win. The metric is the market itself. When you have a team trying to slash costs who say, “I could hire this artist full time, that’s a whole year’s worth of salary, or I could just pay a little subscription fee,” they’re going to go for the model.
Veterans who should be respected for the incredible contributions to our industry have been approached by high-profile production houses being like, “Can you paint over this Midjourney image? Oh, and we’ll pay you half.” That’s happening right now. At least in film, there’s at least some good pay a person can make a living off, and that’s now being lowered. And it’s going so much faster than any of us ever imagined. There’s a lot of angst and depression, even among actual professionals who are like, “I’ve given my whole life to this. It’s a lifetime of work.” And then for some company to say, “That lifetime of work, that dedication, it’s now mine. We’re gonna compete against you, we’re gonna make insane amounts of money off your work, and you don’t have to have a say.” That’s fucking a lot of people up. It’s a really tough time."
#InternetArchive#DigitalLending#eBooks#BookPublishing#Copyright#IP#Rentism#Feudalism: "Supporting the archive could be seen as a denial of the unstable financial position of people in the book world and the hard, sincere work of the people who make and sell the books. But the suggestion by the four publishers that offering expensive and complex licensing deals to libraries is the only solution for more income and a better situation for authors, is incorrect.
There’s a hidden income that the authors do not profit from: by participating in the systems that publishers and distribution platforms offer the readers also pay by giving access to their data. This is not a source of revenue generation that authors have an interest in preserving. Furthermore, there is little evidence that library lending has a negative effect on book sales. Expensive licensing deals, the proposal put forward by representatives of the Big Four publishers, mean that libraries will have to offer fewer e-books to their readers, which in turn means fewer readers, which is not benefiting authors. Finally, the licensing structures are a vehicle for censoring and retracting books. In 2022, Wiley withdrew thirteen hundred academic e-books from libraries right at the beginning of the academic year, forcing students to buy the expensive books they needed for their studies."
#AI#GenerativeAI#LLMs#AITraining#GeneratedImages#Copyright#IP: "A lot of early AI research was done in an academic setting; the law specifically mentions teaching, scholarship, and research as examples of fair use. As a result, the machine-learning community has traditionally taken a relaxed attitude toward copyright. Early training sets frequently included copyrighted material.
As academic researchers took jobs in the burgeoning commercial AI sector, many assumed they would continue to enjoy wide latitude to train on copyrighted material. Some feel blindsided by copyright holders’ demands for cash.
“We all learn for free,” Daniel Jeffries wrote in his tweet summing up the view of many in the AI community. “We learn from the world around us and so do machines.”
The argument seems to be that if it’s legal for a human being to learn from one copyrighted book, it must also be legal for a large language model to learn from a million copyrighted books—even if the training process requires making copies of the books.
As MP3.com and Texaco learned, this isn't always true. A use that’s fair at a small scale can be unfair when it’s scaled up and commercialized.
But AI advocates like Jeffries are right that sometimes it is true. There are cases where courts have held that bulk technological uses of copyrighted works are fair use. The most important example is almost certainly the Google Books case."
#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Copyright#IP: "All but one of the generative AI copyright lawsuits is likely years away from being definitively resolved. However, a Thomson Reuters lawsuit against Ross Intelligence for use of Westlaw headnotes as training data for Ross’s generative AI system for analyzing legal issues is scheduled to go to trial in late August 2024. Ross claims it made only fair use of the headnotes. A trial court denied the litigants’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact on the infringement and fair use claims.
Thomson Reuters is among the generative AI plaintiffs that is asking for a court order to destroy a generative AI model trained on infringing data. Thus, we may know within the year how receptive courts will be to such remedy requests in generative AI cases. (For what it’s worth, I find Ross’s fair use defense quite persuasive. If Ross prevails, we will know no more about likely remedies in generative AI cases than we know today.)
None of the generative AI copyright complaints has explicitly asked a court to order generative AI developers to obtain a license from a collecting society, such as the Copyright Clearance Center, for permission to use in-copyright works as training data, subject to providing compensation for past and future uses of copyrighted works to train AI models.
The Authors Guild, which is the lead plaintiff in one class-action lawsuit, supports a collective license approach for authorizing use of in-copyright works as training data. Because no existing collecting society has obtained permission from all affected copyright owners to grant such a collective license, a court order of this sort would seem inappropriate."