We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s not selling that image (or any image), any more than a VCR is selling you a taped version of Die Hard you got off cable TV.

    It is a tool that can help you infringe copyright, but as it has non-infringing uses, it doesn’t matter.

        • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Machines aren’t culpable in law.

          There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.

          The debate is, which humans are culpable?

          The programmers, trainers, or prompters?

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The prompters. That is easy enough. If I cut butter with a knife it’s okay, if I cut a person with a knife - much less so. Knife makers can’t be held responsible for that, it’s just nonsense.

            • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you try to bread with an autonomous knife and the knife kills you by stabbing you in the head. Is it solely your fault?

              • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                That depends on whether the autonomous knife is designed dangerously and it’s a common occurrence, or whether I was being a moron and essentially rigged it to stab me, akin to asking for copyright material from an AI and getting it (scene from a movie, characters part of intellectual property etc)

                • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  So you’re saying if it’s easy to accidentally get copyright images out of this AI by prompting ordinary worlds. Then the AI designers have some questions to answer.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because they aren’t doing anything to violate copyright themselves. You might, but that’s different. AI art is created by the software. Supposedly it’s original art. This article shows it is not.

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It is original art, even the images in question have differences, but it’s ultimately on the user to ensure they do not use copyrighted material commercially, same as with fanart.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If I draw a very close picture to a screenshot of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and try to pass it off as original art because there are a handful of differences, I don’t think most people would buy it.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It has relevance to what counts as an original artwork.

                  This is what you said:

                  It is original art, even the images in question have differences

                  No it is not. They do not have enough differences to be considered original in any court of law.

                  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    ???

                    If I ask for an image of Joaquin Phoenix as The Joker from the movie The Joker, then yes it will not be original.

                    If I ask for original drawings off original ideas it will be original.

                    Therefore AI can be used for both.

                    Therefore the technology itself is not infringing, but only specific uses of it are, same as with a VCR, an HDD and our very brains. This should be obvious, and NYT knows it’s going to lose and that’s why they are now developing their own model. This case is just to stall the industry until old money corpos can catch up to avoid being disrupted out of existence. It has zero legal ground