Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]English
    2•1 year ago

    I am not asking ‘Is it art?’, I am asking ‘Is it copyrightable?’.

    fair enough.

    The thing that makes an idea copyrightable is whether it is a original idea put to use. How the idea came to be “in use” is not a question that copyright asks. Originality is only ever a combination of old ideas in a new way. All ideas are derivative. No idea is created in a vacuum.

    It is more like being able to directly plagiarize someone’s data without attribution, even if you come to a different conclusion than them.

    When does using one person’s data to create your own data become plagiarism? If one were to open a essay with the same first 3 words as another writer on the same subject but come to a completely contrary conclusion did they plagiarize them? Most AI images sample millions of images most of which are not copywrite. Nobody is “directly plagiarize someone’s data,” it is being referenced.

    Even then this legal case was about an image generated by AI being republished (emphasis on re) by someone who didn’t generate it. There is only one image involved in the case. The ruling is simply saying you cant steal images even if they are made by an AI. Either all original images that are put to use are copyrightable or none of them are.

    If the copyright infringer was the AI generator this would be a different debate.

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]English
      5•1 year ago

      Using someone else’s collected data in academia without attribution is 100% plagiarism. Using 1000 peoples combined data is still 100% plagiarism, if it is left uncited in academia. That is why it is bullshit. Only in art are you allowed to not cite your sources and this is an extremely abusive method of doing that.

      I agree that no art IS made in a vacuum but all art except LIM art COULD be made in a vacuum. That is the fundamental processual difference.

      The copyright infringer is the LIM generator (it is not AI stop falling for marketing bullshit), but the courts continue to refuse to acknowledge that, even if they do not give copyright to the LIM piece.

      Correct, it is either all or none, and if it is all, then the LIM generator is in copyright infringement.