It's hard to argue that AI companies aren't making use of copyrighted images to operate a business generating vast quantities of unlicensed derivative images that are often very close to the originals.
And, on the other hand, it also seems very plausible that systems like Midjourney have substantial non-infringing uses, generating images which are different enough from the original source material.
But I can't escape the feeling that regardless of how this case is resolved, all of us (not to mention independent artists whose work is also part of the training data) will end up losing.
briandoyle81 · 11h ago
If nothing else, I hope AI finally forces a re-evaluation of copyright and patent law. They're supposed to exist to make it possible for a small company or an individual to innovate and be able to compete with massive corporations.
Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.
p_ing · 11h ago
> Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.
In the case of AI, it can absolutely be both. Yes large companies/rights holders use it to hammer home their IP, but theft from smaller companies or even individuals by AI does happen, it's just a lot of money to litigate.
I imagine my technical books have been scooped up by AI and while I'm not the publisher, it still impacts the number of cardboard boxes I can purchase with royalties.
briandoyle81 · 11h ago
Yeah, the impact of AI is challenging too.
On the one hand from a technical perspective it's probably some sort of theft, but I don't think we meaningfully have the vocabulary, technology, or laws to address what it does.
Is an AI making images in the style of Studio Ghibli problematic? Probably. But copyright law already allows for some level of permissionless use. If you take a photograph of something, you can sell it without needing to find the owner of the rights for the wineglass the model is holding.
If the result of an AIs work is a tiny percentage of the work of a thousand artists, musicians, or programmers, where's the threshold where it owes someone something.
freejazz · 10h ago
> If nothing else, I hope AI finally forces a re-evaluation of copyright and patent law.
Is AI even controversial in the patent space? I do not think so. I'm not aware of any AI patent cases that destroy the business model like the AI companies claim licensing copyrighted media would require.
>Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.
I don't know why you equate the two. They are completely different paradigms, protecting completely different things, completely different ways. Is the problem competing with Disney now? Didn't seem to be a problem for Mr. Beast...
And, on the other hand, it also seems very plausible that systems like Midjourney have substantial non-infringing uses, generating images which are different enough from the original source material.
But I can't escape the feeling that regardless of how this case is resolved, all of us (not to mention independent artists whose work is also part of the training data) will end up losing.
Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.
In the case of AI, it can absolutely be both. Yes large companies/rights holders use it to hammer home their IP, but theft from smaller companies or even individuals by AI does happen, it's just a lot of money to litigate.
I imagine my technical books have been scooped up by AI and while I'm not the publisher, it still impacts the number of cardboard boxes I can purchase with royalties.
On the one hand from a technical perspective it's probably some sort of theft, but I don't think we meaningfully have the vocabulary, technology, or laws to address what it does.
Is an AI making images in the style of Studio Ghibli problematic? Probably. But copyright law already allows for some level of permissionless use. If you take a photograph of something, you can sell it without needing to find the owner of the rights for the wineglass the model is holding.
If the result of an AIs work is a tiny percentage of the work of a thousand artists, musicians, or programmers, where's the threshold where it owes someone something.
Is AI even controversial in the patent space? I do not think so. I'm not aware of any AI patent cases that destroy the business model like the AI companies claim licensing copyrighted media would require.
>Instead, they've become a brutal sledgehammer in which massive companies and rights holders can entrench their dominance and enrich themselves forever in a way that a smaller entity has almost no hope of competing with.
I don't know why you equate the two. They are completely different paradigms, protecting completely different things, completely different ways. Is the problem competing with Disney now? Didn't seem to be a problem for Mr. Beast...