I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • Hello_there@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The moment that copyright is granted to AI art is the moment that the war against corporations loses. Getty images is just going to generate endless images, copyright them all, and sue any small artist that starts having an independent thought

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      All of the discussion over copyright of AI is a complete waste of time. Given only a bit of human editing AI art is indistinguishable from art made in entirety by a person. It will be nothing but a “feel good” law that does nothing to help the artists AI has displaced. We should be focusing directly on helping artists or others maintain their livelihood.

  • Paragone@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is an error that many in the dispute are making…

    Imagine that BORG-AI is an ai that was trained ONLY on GPL2 program-code…

    Imagine that you use it to fill-in some functions in your codebase…

    What sort of copyright-status should be on those??

    I say they should be GPL2, and they should be considered derivative of the ENTIRE training-data-set.

    That doesn’t mean I think that the BORG-AI should be a copyright holder, though!

    I’m saying that there should be a NEW category, between uncopyrighted & copyrighted, and that the training-sets need to be segregated by license, so that derivatives CAN know what their legal licensing-status is.

    GPL2, GPL3, BSD, LGPL2, whatever… it needs to be consistent within the training-data-set, so that the derivative of THAT module/expert can be having the same license, see?