Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

genericrich t1_j9orl32 wrote

Reply to comment by gantork in US Copyright Office: You Can't Copyright Images Generated Using AI by vadhavaniyafaijan

Photographs record reality we can perceive. AI art machines generate images that are derived based on their similarity to other image elements which match the prompts it is given.

I agree with you that it is unfortunate the patent office based its decision on creative intention instead of on derivation from other copyrighted images. For me, that's the crux of the issue. These machines are just taking your prompt tokens, and manipulating pixels until the generated image is as close as it can get based on what it has been trained on. Which are copyrighted images. So it is literally deriving a new image based on similarity to copyrighted images. Which is derivation, and derivative works are only allowed by copyright holders. (Under US copyright law)

1

visarga t1_j9q9q7o wrote

That is glossing over the fact that nobody can actually demonstrate which of the source images were responsible for this derivation. Will you choose, or shall we pick one or ten at random, or just the closest by similarity score? We have no way of assigning merit.

And I suspect you think everything in a copyrighted work is protected by copyright. But it's not true. Only expression is protected, not the ideas. You can borrow ideas if you don't copy the exact expression. AI only learned basic concepts, it builds new images from first principles. By learning only ideas and not exact expression they can have free hand.

If you want to be 100% sure, then it is possible to train an AI with variations of the original works generated by another AI - this way only the ideas are transmitted and the new model has never seen copyrighted works, so it can never replicate them even by mistake.

4

genericrich t1_j9qlhnd wrote

Ah, a way to skirt the law against using stolen images and abuse human copyright with impunity! And people wonder why artists are concerned with this glowing future you all are so eager for. Sounds positively utopian.

0

visarga t1_ja2zhbj wrote

But it is still preferable to train on synthetic images than on the original works, don't you agree?

When the artist refuses to allow their images be used for training AI models, or it is impossible to get permission for other reasons such as not knowing the correct contact information, if the AI uses variations it won't learn to imitate the originals closely. Variations should be OK because they have no copyright, as the courts decided. Seems like a better compromise than either indiscriminate training or making AI impossible to train.

1

randommultiplier t1_j9qcsqw wrote

>until the generated image is as close as it can get based on what it has been trained on

This isn't the case; if it was you wouldn't be able to create novel images by combining different ideas, but of course you can

4

genericrich t1_j9ql2vo wrote

But it is the case, because that is what it is doing.

−1

duboispourlhiver t1_j9spbmy wrote

It would be more fair to say that AI generators have learned what an image that humans use is, and is now able to produce new images that humans would use, because it has understood the very very complex rules that distinguish an image humans use and random pixel noise.

2

gantork t1_j9oswqo wrote

I do agree that if they had focused on the copyrighted training data it would be more understandable. Even tho I personally think you should still get copyright, I do see how it's a tricky issue and why there's different opinions about it.

2