• Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yet, Awad and Tremblay believe their books, which are copyrighted, were unlawfully “ingested” and “used to train” ChatGPT because the chatbot generated “very accurate summaries” of the novels, according to the complaint. Sample summaries are included in the lawsuit as exhibits.

    I predict they are going to lose & lose bigly. as neither one of these things would be illegal if a human did it.

    • AccidentalLemming@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve noticed that if a human makes a painting in the style of a specific artist, people tend to classify that as taking inspiration. Whereas if Stable Diffusion makes a painting in the style of that same artist, artists tend to be outraged about it.

      I’m not ready to make a moral judgement one way or the other, but I do notice that people seem to treat both cases differently.

      • Dr_Toofing@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I believe the difference is how old the original artworks are. Someone copying the style of Mozart is appreciating his music, but someone copying a modern day musician is just breaking copyright law.
        You can be inspired by Picasso or even Bob Ross, but you are copying/tracing an artist from Tumblr.
        In a way AI is just pastiche, but frownd upon.

        • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve written music for many years, mostly dance stuff. Of course I’m concerned that AI will come for my job too very soon.

          I was thinking about your example… I don’t think the age of the works is a factor. It’s about similarity. For example, I decided to start switch things up and start writting really savage, heavy ‘big beat’ stuff a few months ago. It’s heavily, heavily inspired by The Prodigy because they’ve been musical heroes of mine from a young age (lucky enough to have seen them live back in the day), nobody else really writes music like that, so it’s my only reference for ‘savage heavy big beat’.

          None of the 4 tracks I’ve finished sound remotely like any track by The Prodigy, but the first thing most people say when hearing it is “wow that sounds like The Prodigy”. While someone somewhere will bitch about it and say I’m not being creative enough or I should have my own sound, no-one in their right mind would say I’m breaching copyright law by writing brand new music influenced by their distinct sound that I’ve absorbed through decades of listening.

          If I really wanted to, I could do the same with many artist’s sound in a short space of time by focussing on it. Perhaps a bit ethically dubious but still not illegal.

          If I trained an AI model to ‘absorb’ music from artists that I’ve purchased, and told it to spit out new music that resembled their sound without copying it, would that be illegal? It’s an interesting debate imo.

          • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            While someone somewhere will bitch about it and say I’m not being creative enough or I should have my own sound

            There isn’t an artist dead or alive that doesn’t use another artist as inspiration or even “borrow” from them. I’m sure The Prodigy has bands and music that they draw on to make their stuff. You probably already know all of this but you keep doing your shit man and screw the haters.

              • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can do what I did in my 3rd grade report on Egypt. I put quotes at the beginning of my paper, copied word for word the introduction to a n “Egypt for Kids” book and closed quotes. Didn’t plagiarize- quoted all my sources…

                Teacher had a parent conference the next week…

            • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly, we’re all stood on the shoulders of giants. Plus, The Prodigy are notorious and proud sample / sound / melody pirates, so I’m just following in their footsteps haha. Thanks for saying that though!

          • d3Xt3r@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I was excited to see a mention of “Big Beat”, but saddened to see no mention of “Fatboy Slim”. :(

      • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To me ai stuff needs to be disclaimed

        I like to use ai art and text generation but just becuase I think it’s neat to see a wizard battling a mech in a steam punk setting

        As for people who actually publish the art I always believe things such as the fact it’s an AI, prompt, seed, and what ever else techno glibble glob is used to make the image or story

        AI is a tool and a lot of people are trying to power drill a nail in

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Should artists be required to list off their whole toolchain for every piece of art?

          • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ha point taken

            The way I see it though it’s much easier to plug into a prompt than actually learn the skills if that makes sense

            • anlumo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              At least with Stable Diffusion, there’s a lot more to it than just plugging in a prompt. It’s an iterative process with inpainting, outpainting, adjusting generation parameters, upscalers, etc.

      • Piramic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think its because it takes some talent and effort to reproduce an artists style. If someone just makes Stable Diffusion do it, there isn’t much effort put in on their part so it seems like they are taking advantage.

        • nanoobot@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, but should legality be based on artistic effort? (Not asking you directly, just open to anyone who thinks what SD, etc. do should be illegal.)

        • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean wouldn’t it only matter if its being used for commercial usage? Like yeah the commercialization of unedited AI art is iffy but if we are talking about issues with copyright wouldn’t you evaporate a huge part of the internet. Meme culture is literally stealing someone’s art and repurposing it.

          Edit: as the other user pointed out, effort shouldn’t be the defining trait because if I made a piece in 2 hours its somehow belittles because some artist who worked on marble spent months if not years sculpting a piece.