this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
387 points (82.5% liked)
Technology
73939 readers
4104 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you copy work without giving credit to it's source then you're the asshole, the rules shouldn't be any different for AI.
If you ask your friend to draw something with a vague prompt then I like to think you'll get something original more often than not, which is what the article discusses in depth: the AI will return copyrighted characters almost every time.
The rules aren't any different for AI. AI is not a legal entity, just like a pen and canvas are not. It is always about the person who makes money with facsimiles of copyrighted previous work.
So then the people operating this AI and offering paid services are legally in the wrong and should be taken down or pay reparations to everyone they've stolen from.
Again, that makes as much sense as holding Staedtler responsible because someone used their pencils to duplicate a copyrighted work.
If Staedtler sampled copywritten works to create pencils that automatically steal it without attribution on demand, then yes it would be exactly like that.
Those images in the search results are one of three categories:
Officially licensed and distributed works that Spongebob IP owners signed off on
Fair use works, namely noncommercial and parody
Illegal works the posters of which can be sued
Google themselves didn't create those images. Google didn't intentionally profit off of illegal works without giving credit. Google didn't post those images themselves. AI did all of those things.
It does actually matter if Google creates the images and then sells them directly. That is what this discussion is about. If you don't want to be a part of the discussion, fuck off then.
I see you've abandoned your argument to express your mental image of somebody you've never seen or heard before. I accept your resignation, then, happy to help you see the light.