GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Reproduction of copyrighted material would be breaking the law. Studying it and using it as reference when creating original content is not.

    • 1Fuji2Taka3Nasubi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Reproduction of copyrighted material would be breaking the law. Studying it and using it as reference when creating original content is not.

      I’m curious why we think otherwise when it is a student obtaining an unauthorized copy of a textbook to study, or researchers getting papers from sci-hub. Probably because it benefits corporations and they say so?

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        So if a tool is involved, it’s no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material?

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement?

        • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that’s fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will

          1. make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different.

          2. There’s not an effort in creation. There’s human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it.

          3. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything…

          • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff…right?

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        What’s the difference? Humans are just the intent suppliers, the rest of the art is mostly made possible by software, whether photoshop or stable diffusion.

      • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?

        In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.

        But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.

        IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The model itself is a derivative work. It’s existence is what is under dispute. It’s not about using the model to produce further works

      • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Then every single student graduating college produces derivative work.

        Everything that required the underlying knowledge gained from the textbooks studied, or research papers read, is derivative work.

        At the core of this, what are we saying? Your machine could only explain calculus because it was provided information from multiple calculus textbooks? Well, that applies to literally everyone.