Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Riverheart 428 days ago
The collection of the training data is the “scooping up” I mentioned. I assume you acknowledge the training data doesn’t spontaneously burst out of the aether?

As for the model, it’s still creating deterministic, derivative works based off its inputs and the only thing that makes it random is the seed so it being a database of vectors is irrelevant.
1 comments
rcxdude 428 days ago
deterministic is neither here nor there for copyright infringement. a hash of an image is not infringing, and a slightly noisy version of it is.
link
Riverheart 428 days ago
Nobody is trying to copyright an image hash and determinism matters because it’s why the outputs are derivative rather than inspired.
link
bawolff 428 days ago
That is not how copyright works. "Inspired" works can still be derrivative. In the US, entirely deterministic works are not considered derrivative works as they aren't considered new creative works (if anything they are considered the same as the original). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...
link
Riverheart 428 days ago
“In the US, entirely deterministic works are not considered derrivative works as they aren't considered new creative works (if anything they are considered the same as the original)”

Okay, so if the inputs to the model are my artwork to replicate my style, is the output copyrightable by you? You just said deterministic works aren’t derivative, they’re considered the same as the original. That’s not anything I’ve heard AI proponents claim and the outputs are more original than a 1 to 1 photocopy but I assume like the case you linked to that the answer will be, no, you can’t copyright.

link
bawolff 427 days ago
That depends on how much "creativity" is in the prompt, but generally i would lean towards no, the AI created work is not copyrightable by the person who used the model to "create" it.

I believe that is the conclusion the US copyright office came to as well https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ (i didnt actually read their report, but i think that's what it says)

link
Workaccount2 427 days ago
Are anime artists all in copyright violation of each other?
link
Riverheart 427 days ago
It’s not the style itself but the use of the art to train the model that outputs the style. Anime as a style is not copyrightable. The work anime artists create is copyrightable. Specifically, if you take their copyrighted work and feed it into a machine to extract the artistic expressions that characterize anime to make new art, is your usage of their art in that process fair use?

Fair Use 4th Factor: This factor considers whether the use could harm the copyright holders market for the original work.

If the use is research it’s fine. If the use is providing a public non-commercial model then it is somewhat harmful as their work is devalued. If the goal is to compete with them it is very harmful. Therefore, since we’re talking about the last two use cases, I argue fair use does not apply. Others maintain it does as maybe you do.

If it’s not fair use then it would be infringing on that particular copyright holder.

As you know, anime art is a spectrum with “How to Draw Manga for Kids” at the bottom and studio quality at the top. People pick and choose the art to train on not just because of the style but also the quality and consistency of their work. That’s why you might choose a specific artist to base a model on even though their style is just “anime”.

link