Midjourney claims ''great victory''

  • BeriaInocenceProject [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    As nice as it would be to have a total AI commons, the reasoning is kinda bullshit. Copyright office is arguing this technology is different because it's "random" and "not possible to predict", but it's actually deterministic and merely hard to predict. Expecting this to get overturned the moment AI gets used by a major film studio.

    • mittens [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Yep this is a good read on the situation, I don't even think overturning it is the only way to get around it, what if I retrain the last layer and copyright the resulting weights?

      • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That wouldn't do anything. You can copyright the weights but not the model outputs, if this stands. Incidentally, I have no idea if slightly perturbing the weights of a model that falls under a certain license would then allow you to completely escape that license, my guess is that if the overall result is fairly similar the answer would be no.

        Also, I do feel that this whole thing is a bit moot. If the author just claimed that they created the art they would probably be granted copyright protection.

  • WhyEssEff [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    IP is and continues to be a fuck that is an indefinite nightmare to continuously litigate :sicko-intrigued:

  • groundling20XX [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I expect AI production with small human tweaking to make copyright enforceable is the logical answer here.

    • BeriaInocenceProject [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      The copyright office rejected that argument in the same letter. The author's small changes weren't a “sufficient amount of original authorship” .

    • CredibleBattery [he/him, comrade/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      soon enough we'll have techbros claiming that writing a prompt is enough ''human authorship'' to be protected by copyright

  • blobjim [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    lol amazing spin and cope on their part. Good ruling by the court I guess. Of course in 100 years it will be used to oppress an robots who are artists. :P

    • kot
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • ComradeChairmanKGB [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        You don't think there's any possibility of developing actual synthetic life? Obviously the current machine learning algorithm stuff isn't going to do it. But I'm curious what makes you believe it's completely impossible? It seems to me that if it occurs biologically it should somehow be replicable.

        • kot
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • ComradeChairmanKGB [comrade/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            No I mean we see that sapience can occur in biological systems. It should be replicable in synthetic systems.

            • kot
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              deleted by creator