GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

    • hglmanEnglish
      2210·
      10 months ago

      So if a tool is involved, it’s no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material?

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      113·
      10 months ago

      Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement?

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        310·
        10 months ago

        Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that’s fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will

        1. make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different.

        2. There’s not an effort in creation. There’s human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it.

        3. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything…

        • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.worldEnglish
          42·
          10 months ago

          You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff…right?

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      83·
      10 months ago

      What’s the difference? Humans are just the intent suppliers, the rest of the art is mostly made possible by software, whether photoshop or stable diffusion.

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.worldEnglish
      54·
      10 months ago

      I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?

      In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.

      But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.

      IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.