Why not? If you feed the entirety of a given IP (say, every frame in every Star Wars film or show), you could train an AI to produce imagery derived exclusively from copyrighted material.
I think the final product and the ideas and concepts that it holds are the important aspect for copyright.
If I cut up a Star Wars poster into 1,000,000 tiny pieces, and then reassemble them into a self portrait with no reference whatsoever to Star Wars and sell it, would I have committed copyright infringement?
If I did the same thing but made a stormtrooper out of the pieces, is the copyright issue with the source material, or the final product?
Both in that case are a copyright violation, depending on which images your source. Collages are a frequent example of this, it’s already an answered problem.
Collages when used in a transformative way are not a copyright violation. It’s mostly a case by case thing because people will make a “collage” that is just an image with some sparkles around it.
The example you’re responding to where you make a picture of your face would almost certainly not be considered a copyright violation.
You should have to actually pay for works that cost money, but authors don’t have the right to nitpick and five tune the ways that their stuff is used so long as the uses aren’t copying and redistributing their work.
Authors have tried to use excessive control of copyright many times and get shot down every single time with things like web scraping and search engines. Demanding payment for AI training specifically is a massive grift and overreach from a small group of people trying to hold back progress so they can make a quick buck.
The Jews control the world conspiracy is rooted in the idea that there is a secret cabal of powerful people who manipulate the world systems behind the scenes.
My post contained literally no logic of the sort and even talked about how authors are regularly shot down and copyright just isn’t as powerful as they think it is.
It’s not about a secret group of wealthy people controlling the state.
It’s not about people controlling things through subversion.
It’s literally just about the status quo of copyright law and the fact that authors regularly try to extend it to hilarious and harmful overextension and fail.
The only connection between my post and Jewish conspiracy is “small group trying to make money”.
If you’re not able to read my comment in enough depth to understand it has nothing to do with Jewish conspiracy theories you’re in no place to call anyone or anything stupid.
You shouldn’t need permission to include images in training data.
Why not? If you feed the entirety of a given IP (say, every frame in every Star Wars film or show), you could train an AI to produce imagery derived exclusively from copyrighted material.
I think the final product and the ideas and concepts that it holds are the important aspect for copyright.
If I cut up a Star Wars poster into 1,000,000 tiny pieces, and then reassemble them into a self portrait with no reference whatsoever to Star Wars and sell it, would I have committed copyright infringement?
If I did the same thing but made a stormtrooper out of the pieces, is the copyright issue with the source material, or the final product?
Both in that case are a copyright violation, depending on which images your source. Collages are a frequent example of this, it’s already an answered problem.
Collages when used in a transformative way are not a copyright violation. It’s mostly a case by case thing because people will make a “collage” that is just an image with some sparkles around it.
The example you’re responding to where you make a picture of your face would almost certainly not be considered a copyright violation.
You should if you plan on making money on it. I assume that Microsoft does.
You should have to actually pay for works that cost money, but authors don’t have the right to nitpick and five tune the ways that their stuff is used so long as the uses aren’t copying and redistributing their work.
Authors have tried to use excessive control of copyright many times and get shot down every single time with things like web scraping and search engines. Demanding payment for AI training specifically is a massive grift and overreach from a small group of people trying to hold back progress so they can make a quick buck.
Based as hell ngl
It’s fun to see that the only way for AI tech bros to approach the copyright problem is to claim that it’s a Jewish conspiracy that shouldn’t exist.
Wait wait wait.
Did your see me say “a small group of people wanting to make money” and assume I was talking about Jews instead of authors?
No, I am saying that you see it like that. The inherent conspiratorial logic in what you are saying is analogous to Jewish conspiracy theories.
Not even slightly.
The Jews control the world conspiracy is rooted in the idea that there is a secret cabal of powerful people who manipulate the world systems behind the scenes.
My post contained literally no logic of the sort and even talked about how authors are regularly shot down and copyright just isn’t as powerful as they think it is.
It’s not about a secret group of wealthy people controlling the state.
It’s not about people controlling things through subversion.
It’s literally just about the status quo of copyright law and the fact that authors regularly try to extend it to hilarious and harmful overextension and fail.
The only connection between my post and Jewish conspiracy is “small group trying to make money”.
Ok I withdraw my accusations of you being conspiracy brained and settle for just having a retarded view of what copyright is.
If you’re not able to read my comment in enough depth to understand it has nothing to do with Jewish conspiracy theories you’re in no place to call anyone or anything stupid.