I mean AI is already stealing all art and images on the web without paying anything. They could just literally scrape and pay nothing. Web scraping isn’t illegal, they already do it, why would they pay anyone? Unless the law catches up about the rights to manufacture AI content based on ill-gotten data, then why would they pay what they don’t have to?
Could you please point me to legal definitions, in court or otherwise, that say it is not violating my copyright license to directly use my artwork in any shape or form for a non-fair use product? As in, a service you pay money for to create things based on the training data it has taken from me, is not fair use. Or point me to the legal definitions where I lose my copyright by posting things online? Allowing to scrape is not the same thing as giving derivative copyright license permissions. You aren’t disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with my legal rights.
hmm. That talks of data mining not of derivative work from the mined data. … I’ll leave the discussion to others, though.
What effect would a Creative Commons “ND” clause have? Is it reserving the right to make derivatives? And would machine generated stuff even count as a derivative?
DuckDuckGo translate:
Copyright and Related Rights Act (Copyright Act) § 44b Text and Data Mining
(1) Text and data mining is the automated analysis of one or more digital or digitized works in order to obtain information, in particular about patterns, trends and correlations.
(2) Reproduction of lawfully accessible works for text and data mining is permitted. The
reproductions must be deleted when they are no longer required for text and data mining.
(3) Uses pursuant to subsection (2) sentence 1 shall only be permitted if the rights holder has not reserved them. A reservation of use for works accessible online is only effective if it is made in machine-readable form.
Translation:
(1) Text and data mining is the automated analysis of one or more digital or digitized works in order to obtain information, in particular about patterns, trends and correlations.
(2) Reproduction of lawfully accessible works for text and data mining is permitted. The reproductions must be deleted when they are no longer required for text and data mining.
(3) Uses pursuant to subsection (2) sentence 1 shall only be permitted if the rights holder has not reserved them. A reservation of use for works accessible online is only effective if it is made in machine-readable form.
None of that says anything about creating profitable derivative work. In fact is specifies patterns, trends and correlations, which does not lead me to believe it is protecting visual works created from this data, those kind of things are only used to inform things, like information science.
What do you mean by stealing?
The data remains, all they do is learning from something which is public
What is different to Googles approach, they are just watching and learning
Why is it treated so differently when it essentially does nothing new, but uses the data in a different way
they are just watching and learning Why is it treated so differently
Because it isn’t human. It isn’t watching and learning, it is being fed my creative content as data that I have not allowed nor have been compensated for, which is then turned around and sold as a service. My work is being consumed for commercial uses by an inhuman who does not have fair use education rights, with the sole intent to create a profitable product, and I’m getting nothing. I have legal rights, no matter where I post my work, to retain my copyrights and I have the right to not consent to improper use of my works that do not align with the licenses I have chosen to give it. Websites ask for a licenses in their ToS to be able to even just display and share my artwork when I upload it. When I create an image, I am given ownership of it’s copyright to control the use, distribution, and right to create derivatives. This isn’t a fuzzy area, it’s very clear. If an artist did not consent to their artwork being used as training data for a non-fair use reason, it is stealing their works.
And no, it’s not fair use under education. Copyright exists for human protection and uses. It isn’t being used for ‘learning’ it’s used as data to be repackaged and sold. Google’s use of it showing up in search is to link back to posts that contain my work, retain my copyright, and are not derivatives. If you mean by captchas, yeah capchas are pretty bullshit.
And circling back to my original post. So? AI companies aren’t paying for their image training data, so why would they pay for reddit’s api?
I feel the bigger problem with these AIs is more how they are solely being used to improve profits and productivity, these only affect the capital owners. None of that is going to improve the laborer (i.e., the artist, the coder, the writer, the people who create value from capital). This is only going to get worse. We are being normalized to automation and AI with the use of self-checkout.
Also, about Reddit training data, I think they are too late to the party. The weights they were needed for are made. I do not think they are the exclusive source of specialized information, and (I hope) they are going to find out. They are just going to further show how silly the free market and the stock market are. The people who require the data will probably have other ways of getting it. r/datahoarders and people like that come to mind. Reddit is only making new data hard to access which, which they are not (and hopefully never) an exclusive source of.
Yeah, AI can totally exist and be useful, but currently it’s in the hands of tech dudes and admins who have a terrible track record with developing things responsibly and over hyping and masking flaws. It’s used to make a profit at the colossal detriment to humans. It’s used to hurt us currently, not help at all.
I think the training data from reddit probably only used the API because it was easier and free. And if no longer free, there’s nothing pointing to them actually paying for it. It’s not like reddit is the only data, they very much likely already have web scrapers for other uses that they can just tune for reddit.
Yeah, some people just know how to ruin a cool, nice toy.
True, I can see determined groups finding free/cheaper workarounds for it. They fucked up making it stupid expensive dint they? They could have actually gotten money some money if they were smart about it. oh well cant fix greed.
I mean AI is already stealing all art and images on the web without paying anything. They could just literally scrape and pay nothing. Web scraping isn’t illegal, they already do it, why would they pay anyone? Unless the law catches up about the rights to manufacture AI content based on ill-gotten data, then why would they pay what they don’t have to?
deleted by creator
Could you please point me to legal definitions, in court or otherwise, that say it is not violating my copyright license to directly use my artwork in any shape or form for a non-fair use product? As in, a service you pay money for to create things based on the training data it has taken from me, is not fair use. Or point me to the legal definitions where I lose my copyright by posting things online? Allowing to scrape is not the same thing as giving derivative copyright license permissions. You aren’t disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with my legal rights.
deleted by creator
hmm. That talks of data mining not of derivative work from the mined data. … I’ll leave the discussion to others, though.
What effect would a Creative Commons “ND” clause have? Is it reserving the right to make derivatives? And would machine generated stuff even count as a derivative?
DuckDuckGo translate:
deleted by creator
Where has that been proven legally?
Translation: (1) Text and data mining is the automated analysis of one or more digital or digitized works in order to obtain information, in particular about patterns, trends and correlations.
(2) Reproduction of lawfully accessible works for text and data mining is permitted. The reproductions must be deleted when they are no longer required for text and data mining.
(3) Uses pursuant to subsection (2) sentence 1 shall only be permitted if the rights holder has not reserved them. A reservation of use for works accessible online is only effective if it is made in machine-readable form.
None of that says anything about creating profitable derivative work. In fact is specifies patterns, trends and correlations, which does not lead me to believe it is protecting visual works created from this data, those kind of things are only used to inform things, like information science.
deleted by creator
Where are algorithms considered as being new and legally allowed derivative works in relation to visual works of art?
deleted by creator
What do you mean by stealing? The data remains, all they do is learning from something which is public
What is different to Googles approach, they are just watching and learning Why is it treated so differently when it essentially does nothing new, but uses the data in a different way
Because it isn’t human. It isn’t watching and learning, it is being fed my creative content as data that I have not allowed nor have been compensated for, which is then turned around and sold as a service. My work is being consumed for commercial uses by an inhuman who does not have fair use education rights, with the sole intent to create a profitable product, and I’m getting nothing. I have legal rights, no matter where I post my work, to retain my copyrights and I have the right to not consent to improper use of my works that do not align with the licenses I have chosen to give it. Websites ask for a licenses in their ToS to be able to even just display and share my artwork when I upload it. When I create an image, I am given ownership of it’s copyright to control the use, distribution, and right to create derivatives. This isn’t a fuzzy area, it’s very clear. If an artist did not consent to their artwork being used as training data for a non-fair use reason, it is stealing their works.
And no, it’s not fair use under education. Copyright exists for human protection and uses. It isn’t being used for ‘learning’ it’s used as data to be repackaged and sold. Google’s use of it showing up in search is to link back to posts that contain my work, retain my copyright, and are not derivatives. If you mean by captchas, yeah capchas are pretty bullshit.
And circling back to my original post. So? AI companies aren’t paying for their image training data, so why would they pay for reddit’s api?
I feel the bigger problem with these AIs is more how they are solely being used to improve profits and productivity, these only affect the capital owners. None of that is going to improve the laborer (i.e., the artist, the coder, the writer, the people who create value from capital). This is only going to get worse. We are being normalized to automation and AI with the use of self-checkout.
Also, about Reddit training data, I think they are too late to the party. The weights they were needed for are made. I do not think they are the exclusive source of specialized information, and (I hope) they are going to find out. They are just going to further show how silly the free market and the stock market are. The people who require the data will probably have other ways of getting it. r/datahoarders and people like that come to mind. Reddit is only making new data hard to access which, which they are not (and hopefully never) an exclusive source of.
Yeah, AI can totally exist and be useful, but currently it’s in the hands of tech dudes and admins who have a terrible track record with developing things responsibly and over hyping and masking flaws. It’s used to make a profit at the colossal detriment to humans. It’s used to hurt us currently, not help at all.
I think the training data from reddit probably only used the API because it was easier and free. And if no longer free, there’s nothing pointing to them actually paying for it. It’s not like reddit is the only data, they very much likely already have web scrapers for other uses that they can just tune for reddit.
Yeah, some people just know how to ruin a cool, nice toy.
True, I can see determined groups finding free/cheaper workarounds for it. They fucked up making it stupid expensive dint they? They could have actually gotten money some money if they were smart about it. oh well cant fix greed.
deleted by creator