Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • Square Singer@feddit.deEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Well, Shakespeare has beed dead for a few years now, there’s no copyright to speak of.

    And if you make a book based on an existing one, then you totally need permission from the author. You can’t just e.g. make a Harry Potter 8.

    But AIs are more than happy to do exacly that. Or to even reproduce copyrighted works 1:1, or only with a few mistakes.

    • Phlogiston@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      If a person writes a fanfic harry potter 8 it isn’t a problem until they try to sell it or distribute it widely. I think where the legal issues get sticky here are who caused a particular AI generated Harry Potter 8 to be written.

      If the AI model attempts to block this behavior. With contract stipulations and guardrails. And if it isn’t advertised as “a harry potter generator” but instead as a general purpose tool… then reasonably the legal liability might be on the user that decides to do this or not. Vs the tool that makes such behavior possible.

      Hypothetically what if an AI was trained up that never read Harry Potter. But its pretty darn capable and I feed into it the entire Harry Potter novel(s) as context in my prompt and then ask it to generate an eighth story — is the tool at fault or am I?

      • Square Singer@feddit.deEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        Fanfic can actually be a legal problem. It’s usually not prosecuted, because it harms the brand to do so, but if a company was doing that professionally, they’d get into serious hot water.

        Regarding your hypothetical scenario: If you train the AI with copyrighted works, so that you can make it reproduce HP8, then you are at fault.

        If the tool was trained with HP books and you just ask really nicely to circumvent the protections, I would guess the tool (=> it’s creators) would certainly be at fault (since it did train on copyrighted material and the protections were obviously not good enough), and at the latest when you reproduce the output, you too are.

    • jecxjo@midwest.socialEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      It seems like people are afraid that AI can do it when i can do it too. But their reason for freaking out is…??? It’s not like AI is calling up publishers trying to get Harry Potter 8 published. If i ask it to create Harry Potter 1 but change his name to Gary Trotter it’s not the AI that is doing something bad, it’s me.

      That was my point. I can memorize text and its only when I play it off as my own that it’s wrong. No one cares that I memorized the first chapter and can recite it if I’m not trying to steal it.

      • Square Singer@feddit.deEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        That’s not correct. The issue is not whether you play it off as your own, but how much the damages are that you can be sued for. If you recite something that you memorized in front of a handful of friends, the damages are non-existant and hence there is no point in sueing you.

        But if you give a large commercial concert and perform a cover song without permission, you will get sued, no matter if you say “This song is from <insert original artist> and not from me”, because it’s not about giving credit, it’s about money.

        And regarding getting something published: This is not so much about big name art like Harry Potter, but more about people doing smaller work. For example, voice actors (both for movie translations and smaller things like announcements in public transport) are now routinely replaced by AI that was trained on their own voices without their permission.

        Similar story with e.g. people who write texts for homepages and ad material. Stuff like that. And that has real-world consequences already now.

        • jecxjo@midwest.socialEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          The issue is not whether you play it off as your own, but how much the damages are that you can be sued for.

          I think that’s one in the same. I’m just not seeing the damages here because the output of the AI doesn’t go any further than being AI output without a further human act. Authors are idiots if they claim “well someone could ask ChatGPT to output my entire book and you could read it for free.” If you want to go after that type of crime then have ChatGPT report the users asking for it. If your book is accessible via a library I’m not see any difference between you asking ChatGPT to write in someone’s style and asking me to write in their style. If you ask ChatGPT for lines verbatim i can recite them too. I don’t know what legitimate damages they are claiming.

          For example, voice actors

          I think this is a great example but again i feel like the law is not only lacking but would need to outlaw other human acts not currently considered illegal.

          If you do impressions you’re mimicking the tone, cadence and selection of language someone else does. You arent recording them and playing back the recording, you are using your own voice box to create a sound similar to the celebrity. An AI sound generator isn’t playing back a recording either. It’s measuring tone, cadence, and language used and creates a new sound similar to the celebrity. The only difference here is that the AI would be more precise than a humans ability to use their voice.