We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because this proves that the “AI”, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie

    I don’t think that’s a justified conclusion.

    If I watched a movie, and you asked me to reproduce a simple scene from it, then I could do that if I remembered the character design, angle, framing, etc. None of this would require storing the image, only remembering the visual meaning of it and how to represent that with the tools at my disposal.

    If I reproduced it that closely (or even not-nearly-that-closely), then yes, my work would be considered a copyright violation. I would not be able to publish and profit off of it. But that’s on me, not on whoever made the tools I used. The violation is in the result, not the tools.

    The problem with these claims is that they are shifting the responsibility for copyright violation off of the people creating the art, and onto the people making the tools used to create the art. I could make the same image in Photoshop; are they going after Adobe, too? Of course not. You can make copyright-violating work in any medium, with any tools. Midjourney is a tool with enough flexibility to create almost any image you can imagine, just like Photoshop.

    Does it really matter if it takes a few minutes instead of hours?

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      AIs are not humans my dude. I don’t know why people keep using this argument. They specifically designed this thing to scrape copyrighted material, it’s not like an artist who was just inspired by something.

      • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Photoshop is not human. AutoTune is not human. Cameras are not human. Microphones are not human. Paintbrushes are not human. Etc.

        AI did not create this. A HUMAN created this with AI. The human is responsible for the creating it. The human is responsible for publishing it.

        Please stop anthropomorphizing AI!

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It isn’t human, but that IS how it works.

        It’s analyzing material and extracting data about it, not compiling the data itself. In much the same way TDM (textual data mining) analyzes text and extracts information about it for the purposes of search and classification, or sentiment analysis, ECT, an “AI” model analyses material and extracts information on how to construct new language or visual media that relates to text prompts.

        It’s important to understand this because it’s core to the fair use defence getting claimed. The models are derived from copyrighted works, but they aren’t themselves infringing. There is precedent for similar cases being fair use.