Even_Adder

I'm not sure what you mean. FOSS generative image models are already better than the corpo paid for ones, and it isn't even close. They're more flexible and have way more features and tools than what you can get out of a discord bot or cloud computing subscription.

Don't ignore the plethora of FOSS models regular people can train and use. They want to trick you into thinking generative models are a game only for the big boys, while they form up to attempt regulatory capture to keep the small guy out. They know they're not the only game in town, and they're afraid we won't need them anymore.

These models are just a collection of observations in relation to each other. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.

Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.

What I was responding to here is the idea that of running an automated program on information shared without permission. In that case, the fair use argument becomes very difficult to make, in my opinion. Search engines and other forms of analysis is definitely allowed, but those copies are provided through legitimate means. Downloading articles from behind a paywall and sharing them isn’t the same as indexing publicly available web pages.

I'm not saying you should get anything through illicit means, you could just view the web page yourself rather than sending it to anyone else. For example LAION, provides links to internet data, they don't download or copy content from sites. By visiting it yourself, you'd dodge all those problems.

I think you are oversimplifying this issue and ignoring the context and purpose of using their content. Original analysis of data is not illegal, and that's all these models are, a collection of observations in relation to each other. As long as you can prove that your storage was noncommercial, and no more than necessary to achieve your fair use objectives, you can get by.

Fair use protects reverse engineering, indexing for search engines, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. Moreover, Fair use is a flexible and context-specific doctrine, and you don't have to prove in court that you comply with every single pillar of fair use. It depends on the situation and four things: why, what, how much, and how it affects the work. No one thing is more important than the others, and it is possible to have a fair use defense even if you do not meet all the criteria of fair use.

You're right about copyright forbidding much more than people think, but it also allows much more than people think. Fair use is also not a weak or unreliable defense, but a vital one that protects creativity, innovation, and freedom of expression. It's not something that you have to prove in court, but something you assert as a right.

You should read this.

The end bit, that AI created works aren’t copyrightable, is already settled. However, any work a human does to tweak or select AI generated content, if it is itself creative, is copyrightable.

AI created works are copyrightable and guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office isn't law, so it's also not settled. Guidance reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience, it isn't binding in the courts or other parties. Guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone.

I'm glad we agree.

Humans using the machines have always been the copyright holders of any qualifying work they create.

So you could go take the images out of the comic book and reuse them because they are not copyrighted.

You're begging the question by assuming such content hasn't been modified and could be taken in the first place. How would you know the content you're eyeing is usable without violating any rights or laws?

Copyright law is one big "It depends" making sweeping statements like made and the headline of the article you linked are oversimplifying the issue and presenting a false dichotomy of a much more nuanced issue. The Reuters article I linked presents much less biased coverage that doesn't gloss over important facts.

There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.

Where does the article you linked it say this?

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

The registrar does say this though.

You are arguing in bad faith by implying that my intent is to spread doubt through misinformation. Don't assume things like that. You have no clue of my intentions.

I'm not trying to "spread doubt". I'm simply giving the information as is. If you want to have a conversation about the facts, let me know. If you are here to argue in bad faith then I can't help you.

I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith or intentionally spreading information, I'm letting you know that you're repeating the talking points of those who do.