Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CypherLH t1_j67pjdy wrote

Reply to comment by BellyDancerUrgot in Google not releasing MusicLM by Sieventer

No consent is needed. The training algorithm is just looking at the stuff and using that to learn how to create new stuff. Its not just ingesting it all and then mashing them all out in some giant collage. Its functionally no different than me or you looking in Art Station to get ideas and then being inspired by those ideas to go make new stuff.

If you post your work in a public forum then other people get to look at it and be inspired to do similar works. There is no copyright on "style" or genre or fashion, etc.

In technical terms using the works for learning/training is covered by fair use and creating new works based on that training constitutes a transformative work and is covered under existing copyright precedent. If some judge is convinced to change this then it opens a giant can of worms and artists will have cut their own throats because it leads to Disney copyrighting entire genres and whatnot.

3

BellyDancerUrgot t1_j67qd3w wrote

Totally wrong. A neural network learns a representation from the data. It literally scans ur work. The entire analogy of it ‘just looking’ at ur data is wrong. There’s a reason why artists have watermarks and signatures on artwork hosted on various websites. Circumventing measures put in place to prevent misuse doesn’t mean it’s legal , it just means existing laws were inadequate.

Edit: fyi there’s already work being done to trace back datasets on which ai art generation models were trained. Quite easy to do since most GAN and Diffusion models have distributions that get replicated in the output (cuz the outputs are derived from the representations learnt from the dataset they are trained on) making them easy to trace back.

−1

CypherLH t1_j67qlmd wrote

A representation of a work is NOT the original work, lol. In this case the "representation" is just added weightings into the massive nueral net with billions of parameters that goes into the world model. Like seriously go read about Fair Use and Transformative work. This stuff is well established in copyright law.

Again, if judges are convinced to accept this argument then Fair Use is dead and it opens the flood gate to massive new rent seeking for large holders of IP. (Disney and similar)

​

edit : to be clear, yes the courts will decide this and yes I could be wrong. I don't think so but we'll see.

3

BellyDancerUrgot t1_j67sn0r wrote

It isn’t at all. ‘Lol’

What I understand from our brief exchange :

-u have no idea about fair use, Creative Commons licensing, TDM rules apply to non commercial uses which is not the case here, scraping copyright protected content is a legal infringement if used for commercial purposes and or generate profit.

-u make dumb analogies because u don’t understand that representations in DL are equivalent to a photocopy of ur data. U can’t remove an artists watermark and use their IP to generate revenue.

oh but I can look at someone’s work and modify it a bit and thats fair use - yes except that’s not what’s happening here. Stop trying to throw random analogies trying to connect the two. Ur ai generated art will have the same distribution as whatever input data it sourced from during inference. Which is the entire foundation for digital watermarking against generative diffusion and GAN models which picked up in popularity.

−3

gantork t1_j6biy95 wrote

If you were right, most of the machine learning work done until today would be illegal and Google, OpenAI, Meta, etc., would have been sued to hell long ago.

0

BellyDancerUrgot t1_j6bzv82 wrote

Using scraped data for research does not violate copyright laws. Monetizing it as a product for the public does. Most of the work done by Meta , Google , nvidia and other big tech arent even available for public use let alone monetized for public use. But yeah sure whatever u say! I’ve realized people on this sub who have no real knowhow about ML/DL and about laws/legal consequences are the ones that are the loudest.

Have a good day.

1

dmit0820 t1_j69c4js wrote

> A neural network learns a representation from the data. It literally scans ur work.

The neural network best know for this ability is the human brain. Aspiring artists and musicians scan many works during training which alter the parameters(synapses) of the neural net, allowing it to better recreate the training data or extrapolate from that data to create new and unique output. Sometimes, the parameters in the neural net are configured so precisely that it becomes possible for it to re-create copyrighted works with high precision. The ability to do this does not constitute copyright infringement. Copyright infringement only occurs if the recreation isn't properly attributed.

0