Mastodawn

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦Jan 15, 2023

@cliffjones "no, see, sampling is only a crime if poor, non-white people do it; if it's a megacorp doing the sampling, it's called progress!"

@rysiek @cliffjones I would say it's more like the difference between Weird Al doing a parody of a song (which is more akin to sampling in your metaphor) vs. Weird Al doing a pastiche/style parody of another artist (which is more akin to A.I. art).

eyajpng Jan 16, 2023

@IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones it’s not really comparable to either of those examples, because 1) Weird Al doesn’t require actual copies of the songs he parodies to produce his own music, 2) AI-generated art is not considered parody, which is often granted a fair-use exception to copyright, and 3) Weird Al is not computer software.

@jepyang @IronCurtain @cliffjones 4). Weird Al actually produces quality content

@jepyang @rysiek @cliffjones all three of those things are besides the point. My point is one is doing direct lifting (for which Weird Al secured permission, BTW, and doesn't rely on fair use), and the other is style parodies. Should Weird Al get permission if he does a song in the same *style* as another artist? Because AI pictures seem more like style pastiches than direct lifting.

Athena L.M.Jan 16, 2023

@jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones Even in that case, it's Weird Al who gets the copyright, not... the operator of Weird Al...

@alilly @jepyang @rysiek @cliffjones

I've checked the ASCAP/BMI info, the original songwriters get all the credit and royalties, even in Weird Al's parodies. They get nothing in his style parodies.

@IronCurtain which is nice, but ChatGPT is not generating parodies, for starters because ChatGPT is not an intentional actor here, and has no actual agency.

Also:

> Stable Diffusion relies on a mathematical process called diffusion to store compressed copies of these training images, which in turn are recombined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-century collage tool.
https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/

Stable Diffusion litigation · Joseph Saveri Law Firm & Matthew Butterick

Stable Diffusion litigation

Counterargument: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xo1pae/stable_diffusion_is_amazing_ethical_and_a_gift_to/

Stable Diffusion is amazing, ethical, and a gift to humanity

So first, let me say that stable diffusion has personally allowed me to create some amazing pieces of aren't that I wouldn't have been able to...

@IronCurtain StableDiffusion and other huge models can only be created and controlled by large players.

The power dynamics of such gigantic models are not democratizing. Quite the contrary.

They siphon in works/art/code done by thousands of small independent creators, disregarding their wishes, and become a tool that can only be wielded fully — and controlled fully — by the Microsofts of this world.

Midjourney is a Microsoft? Open AI is an Apple?

Your arguments are prima facie ridiculous.

@IronCurtain
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/microsoft-to-invest-10-billion-in-chatgpt-creator-openai-report-says.html
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-up-with-openai-to-exclusively-license-gpt-3-language-model/

Ridiculous indeed.

Microsoft reportedly plans to invest $10 billion in creator of buzzy A.I. tool ChatGPT

A bet on ChatGPT could help Microsoft boost its efforts in web search, a market dominated by Google.

CNBC

I mean, if you wanted to make a valid criticism of Open AI, you can say that it was partially co-founded by techbros Elon Musk (the same one destroying the bird site) and Peter Thiel ('nuff said).

Strange that those aren't your arguments.

EDIT: here's proof of that: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/

Introducing OpenAI

OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a

OpenAI

@IronCurtain glad you made them for me, because they are indeed good arguments too. There's plenty of problems here.

Long story short: these models are not going to be a democratizing force in tech, or art, or anywhere really, due to hardware requirements and related economies of scale.

Well, I'll quit arguing. Time for go to bed.

@IronCurtain same.

@IronCurtain they might have been started by small independent teams, but the hardware requirements of these models and economies of scale involved will lead to them either being bought out by huge players, or become huge players themselves.

Microsoft and Apple also started as tiny "garage" companies by a few hobbyists.

[email protected]Jan 16, 2023

@jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones "Weird Al is not computer software." I'm not sure this is true.

ocdtrekkie Jan 16, 2023

@Bmcraec @jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones I now want a Weird Al song exploring this possibility.

[email protected]Jan 16, 2023

@ocdtrekkie @jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones I'm sure he's up for the challenge, though I cannot imagine which existing song would fit the bill.

[email protected]Jan 16, 2023

@jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones My brain just realized. Weird Al as RoboCop AND The T-827 terminator model. Accordion not included.

Snail Jan 16, 2023

@jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones Also, Weird Al *does* seek permission from the original songwriters, and was notably upset one time when he found out someone he thought he had permission from turned out not to have ever been informed (due to producer shenanigans).

Richard Bairwell Jan 16, 2023

@polyplacophora @jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones I believe that was Coolio with Gangsta's Paradise (Al's Amish Paradise). Lady Gaga got upset her manager had declined Al's Perform This Way cover of Born This Way. James Blunt and Atlantic Records declined the commercial release of Al's You're Pitiful cover of You're Beautiful (referenced in the White'n'Nerdy music video and available via Al's website)

αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎Jan 16, 2023

@jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones Weird Al, not to be confused with weird A.I.

@jepyang @IronCurtain @cliffjones

@axx I was waiting for someone to make that joke. Thank you.

xrvs Jan 16, 2023

@axx @jepyang @IronCurtain @rysiek @cliffjones I was indeed confused, guess i’mma set my fonts to serif again

@rysiek @cliffjones That being said, I've heard @mmasnick make similar arguments before, such as here: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/16/now-that-white-musicians-are-getting-sued-for-copyright-lawyers-say-copyright-needs-to-change/

Now That White Musicians Are Getting Sued For Copyright, Lawyers Say Copyright Needs To Change

You may have noticed a whole bunch of stories about copyright lawsuits lately against famous musicians for having songs that sound just kind of like some other songs. I’d been meaning to writ…

Techdirt

🇺🇦 haxadecimal 🚫👑Jan 15, 2023

@cliffjones The issue of human authorship is interesting. In a hypothetical case, if I personally created an AI, then used that AI to generate a work, wouldn't that be a work of human authorship, with the Ai serving as a tool, just as if I had used a paintbrush or a word processor to create the work?
Of course, if one argues that the AI is exhibiting creativity in creating the work, that would contradict any argument that the AI is just a tool aiding in the expression of human creativity.

@brouhaha

Thaler has been for years claiming that its his AIs that are being creative, and trying and failing to get copyrights and patents and things on that basis.

He always fails, but it's NOT because anyone has ever said "using a AI tool doesn't involve creativity"; they've only ever said that any creativity involved is (more or less by definition) on the part of the human, not the software.

(All the articles, like this one, saying that in the Thaler cases the PTO found that "art made with an AI can't be copyrighted", are just wrong; that issue has never been decided afaik.)

The obvious argument is that, just like with Photoshop or anything else, when a human uses a piece of software to create a work, the human is the author of the work. This Kashtanova thing MAY be them tentatively ruling otherwise, but since we know about it only like third hand, it's really hard to say.

If anyone has an actual statement of any kind from the PTO on this, I'd love to see it...

@cliffjones

Cliff Jones Jr.Jan 15, 2023

@brouhaha I'd say the AI is a tool, yes, but the lion's share of the creativity comes from the data fed into that AI system, the stuff that allows a simple prompt to become an image. All of *that* is coming from real human artists, and since we can't credit/compensate all of them, then it would seem pretty silly to me to call the person who wrote the prompt the sole artist.

@cliffjones @brouhaha If programmers can design an AI to steal from other people’s art, then those same programmers can design a way for the AI to catalog whose art was stolen and to compensate each artist accordingly.

gunstick Jan 16, 2023

@JMaverickJacks1 @cliffjones @brouhaha you can't tell which authors are in which art piece. That's the principle of the AI. Everytging is mished down into a big global soup of numbers. Even the creators don't know how the AI does various things.
The only way is to compensate authors not per created output but via the used learning data.
Used 10 of your photographs to learn, you get that amount of money. Probably 3 pico-cent.

@gunstick @cliffjones @brouhaha Anyone who steals other folks’ stuff needs to make it their business to know whose stuff it was. “I just went around snatching a little from every purse I could find” is not a very good defense when victims finally track you down.

bignose Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones I could see a happy path here:

* The people who train an AI are required to track provenance and copyright status of every work they *feed in* to train the AI, or they're violating the law. Just like any other party using works under copyright.

* Assuming anyone still wants to run an AI given the above restriction, the works *generated* by that AI gain no additional copyright restriction and are not owned by the AI-monger.

I doubt that happy world can be had though.

eyajpng Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones @brouhaha
>since we can’t credit or compensate all of them

We can and should.

@brouhaha @cliffjones The real issue is that AI is creating derivative works based on human authors’ copyrighted work, and is doing so without licenses, compensation or attribution. Arguably, some AI works might be fair use, like a parody or an educational commentary is, but a computer can’t create its own fair-use purposes for art, and the humans involved probably only argue fair use as a mask for profiteering theft and creative laziness.

@brouhaha @cliffjones FYI: I also despise “musicians” who “create” hit songs by “sampling” 99 percent of an existing melody, and adding a few lines of AutoTuned gibberish where they proclaim themselves geniuses.

RyunosukeKusanagi Jan 15, 2023

@cliffjones this falls in line with the Monkey Selfie ... dispute.

@cliffjones
There is, sadly, almost zero information here (and it gives the usual misinterpretation of Thaler).

It's very odd that we have as far as I can tell zero actual statements from the copyright office; just rather vague (and sometimes later taken down) statements from the copyright holders involved.

All this article says is that "in a post on her Facebook page. Kashtanova revealed that..." some stuff coming out of a game of telephone from a string of non-lawyers.

Really frustrating!

https://twitter.com/rainisto/status/1575494458166378496

@cliffjones
Another interesting-looking case was this one (sorry for bird link):

but as with Kashtanova, the copyright holder seems to have become quiet.

Must be the Cabal. :D

Roope Rainisto on Twitter

“This is what I got back. Now, I think it’s quite clear to read between the lines and understand why they’re asking this - Dall-E (and AI) artworks can go over this intellectual labor threshold and gain the copyright registration approval - or then not. It depends!”

Twitter

Carl Malamud Jan 15, 2023

@cliffjones @mmasnick yet, they continue to issue copyright registrations for edicts of government. Holding firm on that as well. They may not be right, but they are consistent.

@carlmalamud

What precisely are you thinking of there? Aren't government edicts still not copyrightable? Copyright is allowed on works that significantly decorate or enhance or package them, but...?

@cliffjones @mmasnick

David Jan 15, 2023

@cliffjones If AI generated artwork is ineligible for copyright, then AI generated artwork also cannot commit copyright infringement.

Cliff Jones Jr.Jan 15, 2023

@david1 Yeah, I feel like that's a pretty comfortable middle ground to settle at. Sure, you can tell Midjourney to make you something that looks suspiciously like somebody else's artwork (an actual working human artist), but you can't then turn around and sell those images (effectively competing with the original artist).

@cliffjones @david1 Of course, if you create too many free replicas of someone’s art, then you’ve killed the market for that art and have thus infringed copyright.

Colin Alworth Jan 16, 2023

@david1 @cliffjones that’s a little like saying (as an extreme, but clearly false example) that if a photocopier-generated image is ineligible for copyright, then photocopier-generated artwork cannot be copyright infringement. Slight rephrasing of your words, but I true to your intent? Or perhaps I misunderstood?

@david1 @cliffjones But the humans who created the AI can be liable for copyright infringement.

eyajpng Jan 16, 2023

@david1 @cliffjones I don’t follow this logic. If I plagiarize a book, my plagiarized version is not eligible for its own copyright but *absolutely* infringes on the copyright of the person I plagiarized. I can think of no explanation why the former would imply protection against the latter; rather the opposite IMHO.

cshotton Jan 16, 2023

@david1 @cliffjones
"If AI generated artwork is ineligible for copyright, then AI generated artwork also cannot commit copyright infringement."

That's a silly argument. Here, try this:
"If my artwork of Donald Duck is ineligible for copyright, then my artwork of Donald Duck cannot commit copyright infringement."

I'm sure Disney will quickly disabuse you of that misapprehension.

David Jan 16, 2023

@cshotton @cliffjones But your artwork of Donald Duck is eligible for copyright.

akaFlamingogrrl Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones Good

Tofu Golem Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones

Good.

And remember: the AI didn't steal those images. Whoever fed the images into the AI stole those images.

Mark Armstrong Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones I would be curious if the same standard will be used when megacorps inevitably use AI to generate software for their products. If they use an AI will that mean that their software will be ineligible from protection? Does that mean there will be protections for programmer employment simply because companies will want to prove there was a human hand in developing their software products.

Deus Jan 16, 2023

Such a confusing article.

Starts with, “The US Copyright Office initiates a proceeding ruling that a comic book made using A.I. art is ineligible for copyright protection”

Ends with, “During the appeal process, the copyright is still active. “

In essence, the copyright for the AI-generated artwork is still active. No?

Cykonot Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones "who do I have to pay to monopolize this"
-lobbyists

דוח אמין | Reliable Report Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones
Late stage Capitalism will eat itself
@mmasnick

cshotton Jan 16, 2023

@cliffjones This is a slippery slope. Where does AI generated end and really fancy Photoshop enhancement plugin output begin? I mean, if a Campbell's soup can label with a few splashes of color can be copyrighted, why can't some prompt image that's been doodled on by an AI get the same treatment? What if *I* write the software that runs the "AI" algorithm? Who decides if it is "AI" or just a generative art algorithm? This seems absolutely arbitrary and unsupportable as a decision.

Cliff Jones Jr.Jan 16, 2023

@cshotton I'd say it all depends on the data that's fed into the software to teach it. That needs to be completely transparent. None of this shady stuff like DeviantArt pulled where artists had to work fed to the AI by default. They changed their policy to where now you have to "opt in," but the damage has kind of been done.

Anyway, as is the case with most technological advancements, this whole thing is both extremely exciting and horrifying. That's what sci-fi is all about, you know?

cshotton Jan 20, 2023

@cliffjones You're missing the point. There's no logical link between the inability to copyright something and the belief that means it cannot infringe. In fact, the very reason you may not be able to copyright something is precisely because it DOES infringe on someone else's work.