It’s all made from our data, anyway, so it should be ours to use as we want

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    So what you’re saying is that there’s no way to make it legal and it simply needs to be deleted entirely.

    I agree.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      There’s no need to “make it legal”, things are legal by default until a law is passed to make them illegal. Or a court precedent is set that establishes that an existing law applies to the new thing under discussion.

      Training an AI doesn’t involve copying the training data, the AI model doesn’t literally “contain” the stuff it’s trained on. So it’s not likely that existing copyright law makes it illegal to do without permission.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        59 minutes ago

        There’s no need to “make it legal”, things are legal by default until a law is passed to make them illegal.

        Yes, and that’s already happened: it’s called “copyright law.” You can’t mix things with incompatible licenses into a derivative work and pretend it’s okay.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        By this logic, you can copy a copyrighted imege as long as you decrease the resolution, because the new image does not contain all the information in the original one.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Am I allowed to take a copyrighted image, decrease its size to 1x1 pixels and publish it? What about 2x2?

          It’s very much not clear when a modification violates copyright because copyright is extremely vague to begin with.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            57 minutes ago

            Just because something is defined legally instead of technologically, that doesn’t make it vague. The modification violates copyright when the result is a derivative work; no more, no less.

        • Voyajer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          More like reduce it to a handful of vectors that get merged with other vectors.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          In the case of Stable Diffusion, they used 5 billion images to train a model 1.83 gigabytes in size. So if you reduce a copyrighted image to 3 bits (not bytes - bits), then yeah, I think you’re probably pretty safe.