|
Top-level
 @pinkdrunkenelephants @mcc That doesn't work if copyright *itself* doesn't apply to AI training, which is what all those court cases are about. Licenses start from the assumption that the copyright holder reserves all rights, and then the license explicitly waives some of those rights under a set of given conditions. But with AI, it's up in the air whether a copyright holder has any rights at all. 9 comments
 @pinkdrunkenelephants @datarama Because humans also are the ones who interpret and enforce laws and if the government does not enforce copyright against companies which market their products as "AI", then copyright does not apply to those companies. @pinkdrunkenelephants @mcc In the EU, there actually is some legislation. Copyright explicitly *doesn't* protect works from being used in machine learning for academic research, but ML training for commercial products must respect a "machine-readable opt-out". But that's easy enough to get around. That's why eg. Stability funded an "independent research lab" who did the actual data gathering for them. @datarama I consider this illegitimate and fundamentally unfair because I have already released large amounts of work under creative commons/open source licenses. I can't retroactively add terms to some of them because the plain language somehow no longer applies. If I add such opt-outs now, it would be like I'm admitting the licenses previously didn't apply to statistics-based derivative works  @pinkdrunkenelephants @mcc I think if there was a simple clear-cut answer to that, the world would be a *very* different place.  @mcc @pinkdrunkenelephants @datarama In reality no, it is not in the air. OpenAI and the rest are in violation of copyright. If it were you and me, the media companies would be getting ready to make an example of us. It is only "up in the air" because the laws don't apply to wealthy powerful people |
Gregory's Server
@datarama @mcc I don't see how it would be up in the air. Humans feed that data into AI and use the churned remains so it's still a human violating the copyright.