We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • CyberSeeker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.

    Doesn’t this prove that a human, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of their memory?

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.

      Artists don’t have hard drives or solid state drives that accept training weights.

      When you have a hard drive (or other object that easily creates copies), then the law that follows is copyright, with regards to the use and regulation of those copies. It doesn’t matter if you use a Xerox machine, VHS tape copies, or a Hard Drive. All that matters is that you’re easily copying data from one location to another.

      And yes. When a human recreates a copy of a scene clearly inspired by copyrighted data, its copyright infringement btw. Even if you recreate it from memory. It doesn’t matter how I draw Pikachu, if everyone knows and recognizes it as Pikachu, I’m infringing upon Nintendo’s copyright (and probably their trademark as well).

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nope humans don’t store data perfectly with perfect recall.

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Humans can get pretty close to perfect recall with enough practice - show a human that exact joker image hundreds of thousands of times, they’re going to be able to remember every detail.

        That’s what happened here - the example images weren’t just in the training set once, they are in the training set over and over and over again across hundreds of thousands of websites.

        If someone wants these images nobody is going to use AI to access it - they’ll just do a google image search. There is no way Warner Brothers is harmed in any way by this, which is a strong fair use defence.

      • Jilanico@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Some do. Should we jail all the talented artists with photographic memories?

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          If they’re copying copyrighted works, usually its a fine, especially if they’re making money from it.

          You know that performance artists get sued when they replicate a song in public from memory, right?

          • Jilanico@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t think anyone is advocating to legalize the sale of copyrighted material made via AI.