|
|
|
|
|
|
by paranoidrobot
517 days ago
|
|
|
I believe there are some other issues other than just "is it transformative". I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it". Similarly, I can't take a sample of a Taylor Swift song and use it myself in my own music - I have to give Taylor credit, and probably some portion of the revenue too. There's also still the issue that some LLMs and (I believe) image generation AI models have regurgitated works from their training models - in whole or part. |
|
|
If you dont replicate Warhols painting entirely, then you are fine. Its original work.
The number of Scifi novels I read that are just an older concept reimagined with more modern characters is huge.
>I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it".
In most sane jurisdictions you can sample other work. Consider collage. It is usually a fair use exemption outside of the USA. If LLMs cause keyboard warriors to develop some seppocentric mindvirus leading to the destruction of collage I will be pissed.
>There's also still the issue that some LLMs and (I believe) image generation AI models have regurgitated works from their training models - in whole or part.
Considered a high priority bug and stamped out. Usually its in part because a feature is common to all of an artists work, like their signature.