• Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, and also navigating the minefields that the LLMs absolutely have copyrighted material in them that wasn’t paid for or licensed. E.G. Dall-E can produce a full image of Fresh Cut Grass, a character owned by Critical Role.

    And that the stuff they produce isn’t copyright-able.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that the stuff they produce isn’t copyright-able.

      Even if that were true, is there no value in public domain art resources?

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exhibit A, Disney, a giant megacorp whose most famous works are literally founded on public domain material.

          Bear in mind that public domain is not like a copyleft license, it’s not “viral.” If I make a movie and the Mona Lisa shows up in it, that movie is still copyright to me even though there’s a public domain element in it. It’s even easier with unique AI-generated stuff because you can’t even tell what’s public domain and what isn’t.

          • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Something has to be ownable to be public domain. AI produced items are un-ownable, since the AI is the owner, but it can’t own them since it’s a legally a “tool”.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are deeply confused about what “public domain” means. Something that is un-ownable (in an intellectual property sense) is public domain.

              You may be referring to the Thaler v. Perlmutter case when you say “AI is the owner?” That’s a widely misunderstood case that’s gone through quite the game of telephone in the media. The judge in it ruled that an AI cannot own copyright, but that doesn’t mean that AI-produced art is uncopyrightable. Just that AIs aren’t people, from a legal perspective, and you need to be a legal person to own copyright. If Thaler had claimed copyright for himself, as a person, things might have gone differently. But he didn’t.