Many are spreading misinformation that Generative AI art is akin to copyright infringement. While this is still being disputed legally, the technical answer ...
I created this video after being spammed by artist groups claiming that Generative AI uses copied samples to create work.
I think I see the disconnect here. I don’t feel that the art/work in question has to be in the public domain to be fair game for inspiration. It is the artists choice how they want to distribute their material. I see no need to differentiate between human inspiration and AI inspiration.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own. In reality the law does allow for you to file for infringement just based on the work being similar, regardless of if the person being accused of infringement has ever even witnessed the source material. I see this as just fundamental flaw in the system, that has existed before AI ever came about.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
That’s not how the law (or the Internet) works currently though. They can license its usage, and also there are automatic copyright protections given by the law as well.
Now, what Congress does with the existing laws in the future is fair game, and another thing altogether.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own.
An interesting technical legal point to argue would be that if an AI model-making corporation copies the content to their servers hard drives before having their model read/study it from said hard drives, vs. having the model ‘see’ it directly from the source material in real time, like how a human being does it. 🤔
As it is now, the content is copied first, then used later, so per your own definition it would be covered by copyright (assuming its not already explicitly licensed otherwise). Again, IANAL. 🙂
I think I see the disconnect here. I don’t feel that the art/work in question has to be in the public domain to be fair game for inspiration. It is the artists choice how they want to distribute their material. I see no need to differentiate between human inspiration and AI inspiration.
If an artist wanted to prevent either humans or AI from being inspired without paying them, they should put their content behind a paywall.
I feel that copyright should apply to copying material, not learning from it to make your own. In reality the law does allow for you to file for infringement just based on the work being similar, regardless of if the person being accused of infringement has ever even witnessed the source material. I see this as just fundamental flaw in the system, that has existed before AI ever came about.
That’s not how the law (or the Internet) works currently though. They can license its usage, and also there are automatic copyright protections given by the law as well.
Now, what Congress does with the existing laws in the future is fair game, and another thing altogether.
An interesting technical legal point to argue would be that if an AI model-making corporation copies the content to their servers hard drives before having their model read/study it from said hard drives, vs. having the model ‘see’ it directly from the source material in real time, like how a human being does it. 🤔
As it is now, the content is copied first, then used later, so per your own definition it would be covered by copyright (assuming its not already explicitly licensed otherwise). Again, IANAL. 🙂
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)