Copyright is a whole mess and a dangerous can of worms, but before I get any further, I just want to quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I’ve known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.” If you’re going to make a point, give the actual point before citing sources because there’s no guarantee that the person you’re talking to will even understand what you’re trying to say.
Having said that, I agree that anything around copyright and AI is a dangerous road. Copyright is extremely flawed in its design.
I compare image generators to the Gaussian Blur tool for a reason - it’s a tool that outputs an algorithm based on its inputs. Your prompt and its training set, in this case. And like any other tool, its work on its own is derivative of all the works in its training set and therefore the burning question comes down to whether or not that training data was ethically sourced, ie used with permission. So the question comes down to whether or not the companies behind the tool had the right to use the images that they did and how to prove that. I’m a fan of requiring generators to list the works that they used for their training data somewhere. Basically, a similar licensing system as open source software. This way, people could openly license their work for use or not and have a way to prove if their works were used without their permission legally. There are some companies that are actually moving to commissioning artists to create works specifically for use in their training sets, and I think that’s great.
AI is a tool like any other, and like any other tool, it can be made using unethical means. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter because artists wouldn’t have to worry about putting food on the table and would be able to just make art for the sake of following their passions. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the generators we have today are equivalent to the fast fashion industry.
Basically, I ask, “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?” And the AI companies of today respond, “No! It belongs to me.”
There’s a whole other discussion to be had about prompters and the attitude that they created the works generated by these tools and how similar they are to corporate middle managers taking credit for the work of the people under them, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.
This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.
Copyright is a whole mess and a dangerous can of worms, but before I get any further, I just want to quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I’ve known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.” If you’re going to make a point, give the actual point before citing sources because there’s no guarantee that the person you’re talking to will even understand what you’re trying to say.
Having said that, I agree that anything around copyright and AI is a dangerous road. Copyright is extremely flawed in its design.
I compare image generators to the Gaussian Blur tool for a reason - it’s a tool that outputs an algorithm based on its inputs. Your prompt and its training set, in this case. And like any other tool, its work on its own is derivative of all the works in its training set and therefore the burning question comes down to whether or not that training data was ethically sourced, ie used with permission. So the question comes down to whether or not the companies behind the tool had the right to use the images that they did and how to prove that. I’m a fan of requiring generators to list the works that they used for their training data somewhere. Basically, a similar licensing system as open source software. This way, people could openly license their work for use or not and have a way to prove if their works were used without their permission legally. There are some companies that are actually moving to commissioning artists to create works specifically for use in their training sets, and I think that’s great.
AI is a tool like any other, and like any other tool, it can be made using unethical means. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter because artists wouldn’t have to worry about putting food on the table and would be able to just make art for the sake of following their passions. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the generators we have today are equivalent to the fast fashion industry.
Basically, I ask, “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?” And the AI companies of today respond, “No! It belongs to me.”
There’s a whole other discussion to be had about prompters and the attitude that they created the works generated by these tools and how similar they are to corporate middle managers taking credit for the work of the people under them, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.
This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.