>They've had their content mocked, copied and even used as hate speech for decades now.
Yeah, by actual PEOPLE not corporations. Even then you aren't allowed to use copyrighted trade marks what the hell??
>There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not.
That doesn't even make sense.
>The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game.
Hmm، so let's see, it's the entirety of the worlds entertainment and media industry, estimated annual revenue (globally) 2.32 trillion U.S. dollars vs. some startup run by jewish guy that employs less than 400 people.
I agree tho that by now the cat is probably out of the bag and that people will most likely just create their own shitty little models at home and that this will only ever get easier as compute gets cheaper and cheaper.
But do people even realize, do they have the brainpower to understand that AI doesn't mean "independent consciouss mind living in a machine somewhere discovering ideas on its own", that it's in fact much more mundane than that and that in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?
> in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?
Nope. Here's an easy test for your claims; prove it.
None of your examples are copyrighted works. They resemble copyrighted works, but my so does my framed painting of Super Mario smoking weed. As long as I'm not using it to identically reproduce copyrighted material in full (which is impossible), what is the potential harm here? It is legally protected, unique expression created in parody of a pop culture figure. This isn't even remotely a new concept.
Also, brush up on copyright precedent and Fair Use. It's not the 60s, Pinkertons won't burn down your house for animating Mickey Mouse sucking a dick anymore. Brave new world, huh?
You can not compare a single instance of whacky artwork created in parody of a pop culture figure to the machine that plagiarizes the work of thousands of people and an artstyle developed over decades.
>what is the potential harm here?
Like, harm to whom? Short term, for the viewer: none.
The brand reputation aspect I have already mentioned.
Mid-term it's media getting boring and predictable. Long term it's culture dying and all attempts at authentic human expression through art drowning in AI generated slop. That's more of a spiritual thing.
> You can not compare a single instance of whacky artwork created in parody of a pop culture figure to the machine that plagiarizes the work of thousands of people
Does it matter? When Google automated the scanning and digitization of millions of books for searching purposes, they were awarded Fair Use[0] protection despite using an automated system to derive unauthorized digital copies of copyright-encumbered material.
AI is clearly more derivative than that. It's too early to call for sure, but it's hard to imagine what a "victory" for copyright holders even looks like at this point.
Yes. This is because they cannot provide you the full text of the book; that would be illegal.
They can provide you a snippet, within the legal limits of what they are able to reproduce. They can also direct you to buy a copy of it through them, if the publisher has a deal with Google. Seeing as all roads lead to Rome... most books in Google Books are also available for purchase through Google. Funny system.
If OpenAI did the same with Dall-e (provide you a snippet, within the legal limits of what they are able to reproduce. They can also direct you to buy a copy of it through them, if the publisher has a deal with [them]) things would be different.
Still not legal right? I can kinda get posters but unless they aquired the right to every single frame in every single movie they used...
Google can't show you links to streaming websites. Get caught making a camrip you go to fucking jail.
Don't get how any of this is allowed to happen. I mean, is Disney just retarded? They do realize that once Dall-e video edition gets released they're going to not have a business anymore, right?
since UBI does not mean "unlimited consumptions for everyone" but some people will definetly want to consume more than others, and assuming with rampant automation there will just be basically zero jobs available exclusively for humans I generally wonder what humans will do to get more money to consume more? It seems like were just moving to some new kind of feudalism which is kinda scary.
Yeah, by actual PEOPLE not corporations. Even then you aren't allowed to use copyrighted trade marks what the hell??
>There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not.
That doesn't even make sense.
>The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game.
Hmm، so let's see, it's the entirety of the worlds entertainment and media industry, estimated annual revenue (globally) 2.32 trillion U.S. dollars vs. some startup run by jewish guy that employs less than 400 people.
I agree tho that by now the cat is probably out of the bag and that people will most likely just create their own shitty little models at home and that this will only ever get easier as compute gets cheaper and cheaper.
But do people even realize, do they have the brainpower to understand that AI doesn't mean "independent consciouss mind living in a machine somewhere discovering ideas on its own", that it's in fact much more mundane than that and that in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?