A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago
    1. Your machine learning algorithms are not people. No amount of calling it Alex or giving it a voice stolen from a well-known actress will change that fact.
    2. If I traced an artwork or copied GPL licensed code into an non-GPL one, my ass would be beaten by others on the internet.
    3. So far, the main usecase of this generative technology is scamming, intentionally creating distrust in the artist community, and an even worse and scummier form of plagiarism, but it doesn’t matter because some shitpost that goes hard, “what if a content creator needs a stock photo?”, and “what if it could be used to resurrect your favorite artist?”.
    4. Power imbalance. There’s a difference a young creator not having money to buy a training material and a big corporation wanting to destroy their profession.
    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      If I traced an artwork or copied GPL licensed code into an non-GPL one, my ass would be beaten by others on the internet.

      If I gave you an arbitrary image from Midjourney and all of the training data from it, I doubt you could match it to the “source art.” AI images are usually transformative.

      • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        This, exactly. AI is generating new images. Oh whoop de do, they did it by mixing a bunch of pixels. As though making an image out of tiny photos isnt literally the same thing and considered transformative. People just have a double standard about a program instead of a person doing it. (Except for that subset kd online artists, they’re just bezerk about copyright and credit in general)

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Which part of “an even worse and scummier form of plagiarism” you didn’t understand?

          • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Different scale, but just go on and defend your billion dollar industry, because “what if it was open source” despite the open source community would never have the ability and the resources to train these models.

            • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              What are you talking about? The open source community has trained these kinds of models. They’re out there.

            • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              I honestly could not give less of a shit who’s training the models. I’m not gonna boycott C# because it was developed by Microsoft. There are open source implementations of generative AI that make use of freely-available models.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pleased to take part in creating the scarcity free future by letting hustle bros to ruin art communities, and letting terminally online people to create endless followups to Metropolis Pt. II instead of them sending death threats to Dream Theater!