The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal

https://lemmy.world/post/17500453

The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal - Lemmy.World

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission. The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models. Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

How would this even work when you sometimes can just remove the watermark by photoshoping
In the same way that the law doesn’t prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.
Wow so much freedom. You can’t even alter a picture that you own.

Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.

Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

Oh hi Disney. Here to shut down another daycare for having a picture of Mickey Mouse?

I have full rights to do whatever the fuck I want with content and tech. If I want to make Daffy Duck solve a mystery with Cheech in Victorian England with Genghis Khan as the chief of Scotland yard and Fred Rodgers as the bad guy I am free to do so. If I buy a machine I can take apart all of it, reverse engineer it, modify it, and comment on it on YouTube.

Bite me corporate

There are people who think that something being official law is automatically legal. It’s a bit inconvenient that Nazi Germany is the first example that comes to mind to explain why they are wrong.

It’s a moral ought from an is. Informal logical fallacy.

Something is illegal therefore it is immoral.

No, those are two different facts. Perhaps in a better world there would be a lot of overlap between those two but in the world we live in it is not a given or even likely.

No, it’s another distinction. Three different things. Something legal can be moral or not. Something made law can be legal or not. For example, if it’s forced in some way so that formally you couldn’t prevent it becoming law, but it’s still illegal, it’s still illegal.

Which is, other than copyright except for protecting the fact of authorship, why all censorship and surveillance is illegal, and, say, why Armenia legally includes Van, Erzurum, Nakhijevan etc, and the fact that Wilson’s mediation and French mandate have been buried by force just means that Cilicia and Melitene are as well.

Restoring law and order takes effort, though.