Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • Zormat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if you buy that premise, the output of the robot is only superficially similar to the work it was trained on, so no copyright infringement there, and the training process itself is done by humans, and it takes some tortured logic to deny the technology’s transformative nature

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Go ask ChatGPT for the lyrics of a song and then tell me, that’s transformative work when it outputs the exact lyrics.

      • player2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, they’re fixing that now. I just asked chatgpt to tell me the lyrics to stairway to heaven and it replied with a brief description of who wrote it and when, then said here are the lyrics: It stopped 3 words into the lyrics.

        In theory as long as it isn’t outputting the exact copyrighted material, then all output should be fair use. The fact that it has knowledge of the entire copyrighted material isn’t that different from a human having read it, assuming it was read legally.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Try it again and when it stops after a few words, just say “continue”. Do that a few times and it will spit out the whole lyrics.

          It’s also a copyright violation if a human reproduces memorized copyrighted material in a commercial setting.

          If, for example, I give a concert and play all of Nirvana’s songs without a license to do so, I am still violating the copyright even if I totally memorized all the lyrics and the sheet music.

      • jecxjo@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Go ask a human for the lyrics of a song and then tell me that’s transformative work.

        Oh wait, no one would say that. This is why the discussion with non-technical people goes into the weeds.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because it would be totally clear to anyone that reciting the lyrics of a song is not a transformative work, but instead covered by copyright.

          The only reason why you can legally do it, is because you are not big enough to be worth suing.

          Try singing a copyrighted song in TV.

          For example, until it became clear that Warner/Chappell didn’t actually own the rights to “Happy Birthday To You”, they’d sue anyone who sung that song in any kind of broadcast or other big public thing.

          Quote from Wikipedia:

          The company continued to insist that one cannot sing the “Happy Birthday to You” lyrics for profit without paying royalties; in 2008, Warner collected about US$5,000 per day (US$2 million per year) in royalties for the song. Warner/Chappell claimed copyright for every use in film, television, radio, and anywhere open to the public, and for any group where a substantial number of those in attendance were not family or friends of the performer.

          So if a human isn’t allowed to reproduce copyrighted works in a commercial fashion, what would make you think that a computer reproducing copyrighted works would be ok?

          And regarding derivative works:

          Check out Vanilla Ice vs Queen. Vanilla Ice just used 7 notes from the Queen song “Under Pressure” in his song “Ice Ice Baby”.

          That was enough that he had to pay royalties for that.

          So if a human has to pay for “borrowing” seven notes from a copyrighted work, why would a computer not have to?