| >So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer? no, my argument is that the tool being run by midjourney makes them liable for how it is operation. because it's their model, their program, their computer. They are responsible at every level. >So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them? not sure why you think that's relevant, but yes google is liable for copyright infringement facilitated by their platform. that's why if you upload a full-length video to youtube and the rights-holder posts a DMCA, google will delist or delete your video. > At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server? why the fuck would javascript change anything? >I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. it really is, there are well-established precedents for how this works and it's only not "cut and dry" if you arbitrarily consider AI startups to be exempt from the same rules that apply to everybody else. |
I still don't see how this would be any different from something like Adobe hosting a cloud-based version of Photoshop. Someone could use that tool to create an image that infringes on someone's copyrights, but I think you would be hard-pressed to convince people that Adobe is liable for the drawings that other people create with their tools.
> not sure why you think that's relevant, but yes google is liable for copyright infringement facilitated by their platform. that's why if you upload a full-length video to youtube and the rights-holder posts a DMCA, google will delist or delete your video.
The YouTube case is about Google themselves redistributing the copyrighted material. The distinction with the Google Docs example is that Google isn't distributing the copyrighted material, it's just a tool being used to facilitate the creation of that material.
The JavaScript remark was just because you implied that it made a difference whether the software was running locally or on Midjourney's servers. If that's the case, I want to know where you think the line is drawn between the two situations.
So, no, I still don't see how this is as cut and dry as you claim.