this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
534 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68441 readers
3581 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They literally asked it to give them a screenshot from the Joker movie. That was their fucking prompt. It's not like they just said "draw Joker" and it spit out a screenshot from the movie, they had to work really hard to get that exact image.
Because this proves that the "AI", at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of its training set.
Likely because the "AI" was trained upon this image at some point. This has repercussions with regards to copyright law. It means the training set contains copyrighted data and the use of said training set could be argued as piracy.
Legal discussions on how to talk about generative-AI are only happening now, now that people can experiment with the technology. But its not like our laws have changed, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If the training data is obviously copyright infringement, then the data must be retrained in a more appropriate manner.
But where is the infringement?
This NYT article includes the same several copyrighted images and they surely haven't paid any license. It's obviously fair use in both cases and NYT's claim that "it might not be fair use" is just ridiculous.
Worse, the NYT also includes exact copies of the images, while the AI ones are just very close to the original. That's like the difference between uploading a video of yourself playing a Taylor Swift cover and actually uploading one of Taylor Swift's own music videos to YouTube.
Even worse the NYT intentionally distributed the copyrighted images, while Midjourney did so unintentionally and specifically states it's a breach of their terms of service. Your account might be banned if you're caught using these prompts.
You do realize that newspapers do typically pay the licensing for images, it's how things like Getty images exist.
On the flip side, OpenAI (and other companies) are charging someone access to their model, which is then returning copyrighted images without paying the original creator.
That's why situations like this keep getting talked about, you have a 3rd party charging people for copyrighted materials. We can argue that it's a tool, so you aren't really "selling" copyrighted data, but that's the issue that is generally be discussed in these kinds of articles/court cases.
Do Training weights have the data? Are the servers copying said data on a mass scale, in a way that the original copyrighters don't want or can't control?
Data is not copyrighted, only the image is. Furthermore you can not copyright a number, even though you could use a sufficiently large number to completely represent a specific image. There's also the fact that copyright does not protect possession of works, only distribution of them. If I obtained a copyrighted work no matter the means chosen to do so, I've committed no crime so long as I don't duplicate that work. This gets into a legal grey area around computers and the fundamental way they work, but it was already kind of fuzzy if you really think about it anyway. Does viewing a copyrighted image violate copyright? The visual data of that image has been copied into your brain. You have the memory of that image. If you have the talent you could even reproduce that copyrighted work so clearly a copy of it exists in your brain.
Yeah. And the hard drives and networks that pass Midjourney's network weights around?
That's distribution. Did Midjourney obtain a license from the artists to allow large numbers of "Joker" copyrighted data to be copied on a ton of servers in their data-center so that Midjourney can run? They're clearly letting the public use this data.
Because they're not copying around images of Joker, they're copying around a work derived from many many things including images of Joker. Copying a derived work does not violate the copyright of the work it was derived from. The wrinkle in this case is that you can extract something very similar to the original works back out of the derived work after the fact. It would be like if you could bake a cake, pass it around, and then down the line pull a whole egg back out of it. Maybe not the exact egg you started with, but one very similar to it. This is a situation completely unlike anything that's come before it which is why it's not actually covered by copyright. New laws will need to be drafted (or at a bare minimum legal judgements made) to decide how exactly this situation should be handled.
Someone already downvoted you but this is exactly the topic of debate surrounding this issue.
Other recognized fair-use exemptions have similar interpretations: a computer model analyzes a large corpus of copyrighted work for the purposes of being able to search their contents and retrieve relevant snippets and works based on semantic and abstract similarities. The computer model that is the representation of those works for that purpose is fair use: it contains only factual information about those works. It doesn't matter if the works used for that model were unlicensed: the model is considered fair use.
AI models operate by a very similar method, albeit one with a lot more complexity. But the model doesn't contain copyrighted works, it is only itself a collection of factual information about the copyrighted works. The novel part of this case is that it can be used to re-construct expressions very similar to the original (it should be pointed out that the fidelity is often very low, and the more detailed the output the less like the original it becomes). It isn't settled yet if that fact changes this interpretation, but regardless I think copyright is already not the right avenue to pursue, if the goal is to remediate or prevent harm to creators and encourage novel expressions.
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?
I've had this discussion before, but that's not how copyright exceptions work.
Right or wrong (it hasn't been litigated yet), AI models are being claimed as fair use exceptions to the use of copyrighted material. Similar to other fair uses, the argument goes something like:
"The AI model is simply a digital representation of facts gleamed from the analysis of copyrighted works, and since factual data cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a description of the Mona Lisa vs the painting itself), the model itself is fair use"
I think it'll boil down to whether the models can be easily used as replacements to the works being claimed, and honestly I think that'll fail. That the models are quite good at reconstructing common expressions of copyrighted work is novel to the case law, though, and worthy of investigation.
But as someone who thinks ownership of expressions is bullshit anyway, I tend to think copyright is not the right way to go about penalizing or preventing the harm caused by the technology.
So selling fan fiction and fan-made game continuations and modifications should be legal?
Not the OP, but yes it absolutely should. The idea you can legaly block someones creative expression because they are using elements of culture you have obtained a monopoly of is obscene.
It should, but also that is significantly different from what an AI model is.
It would be more like a list of facts and information about the structure of another work, and facts and patterns about lots of other similar works; and that list of facts can easily be used to create other, very similar works, but also it can be used to create entirely new works that follow patters from the other works.
In as much as the model can be used to create infringing works -but is not one itself- makes this similar to other cases where a platform or tool can be used in infringing ways. In such cases, if the platform or tool is responsible for reasonable protections from such uses, then they aren't held liable themselves. Think Youtube DMCA, Facebook content moderation, or even Google Books search. I think this is likely the way this goes; there is just too strong a case (with precedent) that the model is fair use.
Copyright law is the right tool, but the companies are chasing the wrong side of the equation.
Training should not and I suspect will not be found to be infringement. If old news articles from the NYT can teach a model language in ways that help it review medical literature to come up with novel approaches to cure cancer, there's a whole host of features from public good to transformational use going on.
What they should be throwing resources at is policing usage not training. Make the case that OpenAI is liable for infringing generation. Ensure that there needs to be copyright checking on outputs. In many ways this feels like a repeat of IP criticisms around the time Google acquired YouTube which were solved with an IP tagging system.
Should Photoshop check your image for copyright infringement? Should Adobe be liable for copyright infringing or offensive images users of it's program create?
If it's contributing creatively to your work, yeah, totally.
If you ask Photoshop fill to add an italian plumber and you've been living under a rock for you life so you don't realize it's Mario, when you get sued by Nintendo for copyright infringement it'd be much better policy if it was Adobe on the hook for adding copyrighted material and not the end user.
A better analogy is: if you hired a graphic designer and they gave you copyrighted material, who is liable?
There's no money for them in that angle though. It's much easier to sue xerox for enabling copyright violations than the person who used the machine to violate copyright.
Courts have already handled this with copy machines. AI isn't terribly different, it's unlikely these suits against model creators succeed.
Is it tho? Honest question.
Yes it is. Honest answer.
So stable diffusion, midjourney, etc., all have massive databases with every picture on the Internet stored in them? I know the AI models are trained on lots of images, but are the images actually stored? I'm skeptical, but I'm no expert.
These models were trained on datasets that, without compensating the authors, used their work as training material. It's not every picture on the net, but a lot of it is scrubbing websites, portfolios and social networks wholesale.
A similar situation happens with large language models. Recently Meta admitted to using illegally pirated books (Books3 database to be precise) to train their LLM without any plans to compensate the authors, or even as much as paying for a single copy of each book used.
Most of the stuff that inspires me probably wasn't paid for. I just randomly saw it online or on the street, much like an AI.
AI using straight up pirated content does give me pause tho.
How did the Joker image get replicated?
It's too hard to type up how generative AIs work, but look up a video on "how stable diffusion works" or something like that. I seriously doubt they have a massive database with every image from the Internet inside it, with the AI just spitting those pics out, but I'm no expert.
So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.
Doesn’t this prove that a human, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of their memory?
Artists don't have hard drives or solid state drives that accept training weights.
When you have a hard drive (or other object that easily creates copies), then the law that follows is copyright, with regards to the use and regulation of those copies. It doesn't matter if you use a Xerox machine, VHS tape copies, or a Hard Drive. All that matters is that you're easily copying data from one location to another.
And yes. When a human recreates a copy of a scene clearly inspired by copyrighted data, its copyright infringement btw. Even if you recreate it from memory. It doesn't matter how I draw Pikachu, if everyone knows and recognizes it as Pikachu, I'm infringing upon Nintendo's copyright (and probably their trademark as well).
Legally speaking, AI is not anything. Its just a computer program. What you're asking is completely a red-herring.
The question here is if the training-weights constitute copyright infringement. Now look at any clip-art set. Most clip-art is so called "royalty free", as in you can copy it from computer-to-computer without any copyright issues, because the author specifically said that its royalty free.
But if you have a copyrighted font, then even copying that font from one computer to another constitutes copyright infringement. (IE: Literally, you aren't allowed to copy this unless you have the permission of the author).
So, when you download Midjourney's training weights, does that act in of itself constitute a copy that violate's the authors of "Joker" movie? As far as I can tell, yes. Because the training weights clearly contain Joker images.
Looking at a copyrighted font with your computer means the font is in your computer's memory. Do I go to jail for every site I visit that uses a fancy font?
Font files ≠ framebuffer
Images ≠ neural network weights
Wasn't that known? Have midjourney ever claimed they didn't use copyrighted works? There's also an ongoing argument about the legality of that in general. One recent court case ruled that copyright does not protect a work from being used to train an AI. I'm sure that's far from the final word on the topic, but it does mean this is a legal grey area at the moment.
If it is known, then it is copyright infringement to download the training sets and therefore a crime to do so. You cannot reproduce a copy of the works without the express permission of the copyright holder.
How many computers did Midjourney copy its training weights to? Has Midjourney (and the IT team behind it) paid royalties for every copyrighted image in its training set to have a proper copyright license to copy all of this data from computer to computer?
I'm guessing no. Which means the Midjourney team (if you say is true) is committing copyright infringement every time they spin up a new server with these weights.
Pro-AI side will obviously argue that the training weights do not contain the data of these copyrighted works. A claim that is looking more-and-more laughable as these experiments happen.
No it's not illegal to download publicly available content it's a copyright violation to republish it.
This is the crux of the issue, it isn't obviously copyright infringement. Currently copyright is completely silent on the matter one way or another.
The thing that makes this particularly interesting is that the traditional copyright maximalists, the ones responsible for ballooning copyright durations from its original reasonable limit of 14 years (plus one renewal) to its current absurd duration of 95 years, also stand to benefit greatly from generative works. Instead of the usual full court press we tend to see from the major corporations around anything copyright related we're instead seeing them take a rather hands off approach.
Its clear that the training weights have the data on recreating this Joker scene. Its also clear that if the training-data didn't contain this image, then the copy of the image would never result into the weights that have been copy/pasted everywhere.
Except it isn't a perfect copy. It's very similar, but not exact. Additionally for every example you can find where it spits out a nearly identical image you can also find one where it produces nothing like it. Even more complicated you can get images generated that very closely match other copyrighted works, but which the model was never trained on. Does that mean copying the model violates the copyright of a work that it literally couldn't have included in its data?
You're making a lot of assumptions and arguments that copyright covers things that it very much does not cover or at a minimum that it hasn't (yet) been ruled to cover.
Legally, as things currently stand, an AI model trained on a copyrighted work is not a copy of that work as far as copyright is concerned. That's today's legal reality. That might change in the future, but that's far from certain, and is a far more nuanced and complicated problem than you're making it out to be.
Any legal decision that ruled an AI model is a copy of all the works used to train it would also likely have very far reaching and complicated ramifications. That's why this needs to be argued out in court, but until then what midjourney is doing is perfectly legal.
And that's the problem. The internet has drastically reduced the cost of copying information, to the point where entirely new uses like this one are now possible. But those new uses are stifled by copyright law that originates from a time when the only cost was that people with gutenberg presses would be prohibited from printing slightly cheaper books. And there's no discussion of changing it because the people who benefit from those laws literally are the media.
Hard? They wrote:
Yes, look how specific they were. I didn't even need to get that exact with a google image search. I literally searched for "Joaquin Phoenix Joker" and that exact image was the very first result.
They specified that it had to be that specific actor, as that specific character, from that specific movie, and that it had to be a screenshot from a scene in the movie... and they got exactly what they asked for. This isn't shocking. Shocking would have been if it didn't produce something nearly identical to that image.
A more interesting result would be what it would spit out if you asked for say "Heath Ledger Joker movie, 2019, screenshot from a movie, movie scene".