[jasonlotito]

> But I don't understand how people jump to "Copyright Violation" for the fact of reading.

The article specificaly talks about the creation and distribution of a work. Creation and distribution of a work alone is not a copyright violation. However, if you take in input from something you don't own, and genAI outputs something, it could be considered a copyright violation.

Let's make this clear; genAI is not a copyright issue by itself. However, gen AI becomes an issue when you are using as your source stuff you don't have the copyright or license to. So context here is important. If you see people jumping to copyright violation, it's not out of reading alone.

> "People should not be allowed to read the book I distributed online if I don't want them to."

This is already done. It's been done for decades. See any case where content is locked behind an account. Only select people can view the content. The license to use the site limits who or what can use things.

So it's odd you would use "insane" to describe this.

> "People should not be allowed to write Harry Potter fanfic in my writing style."

Yeah, fan fiction is generally not legal. However, there are some cases where fair use covers it. Most cases of fan fiction are allowed because the author allows it. But no, generally, fan fiction is illegal. This is well known in the fan fiction community. Obviously, if you don't distribute it, that's fine. But we aren't talking about non-distribution cases here.

> "People should not be allowed to get formal art training that involves going to museums and painting copies of famous paintings."

Same with fan fiction. If you replicate a copyrighted piece of art, if you distribute it, that's illegal. If you simply do it for practice, that's fine. But no, if you go around replicating a painting and distribute it, that's illegal.

Of course, technically speaking, none of this is what gen AI models are doing.

> We just will not get to a sensible societal place if the dialogue around these issues has such a low bar for understanding the mechanics

I agree. Personifying gen AI is useless. We should stick to the technical aspects of what it's doing, rather than trying to pretend it's doing human things when it's 100% not doing that in any capacity. I mean, that's fine for the the layman, but anyone with any ounce of technical skill knows that's not true.

[Aerroon]

>Yeah, fan fiction is generally not legal. However, there are some cases where fair use covers it.

Which is a clear failure of the copyright system. Millions of people are expanding our cultural artifacts with their own additions, but all of it is illegal, because they haven't waited another 100 years.

People are interested in these pieces of culture, but they're not going to remain interested in them forever. At least not interested enough to make their own contributions.

[vessenes]

> Let's make this clear; genAI is not a copyright issue by itself. However, gen AI becomes an issue when you are using as your source stuff you don't have the copyright or license to. So context here is important. If you see people jumping to copyright violation, it's not out of reading alone.

My proposal is that it's a luddish kneejerk reaction to things people don't understand and don't like. They sense and fear change. For instance here you say it's an issue when AI uses something as a source that you don't have Copyright to. Allow me to update your sentence: "Every paper every scientist or academic wrote that references any copyrighted work becomes an issue". What you said just isn't true. The copyright refers to the right to copy a work.

Distribution: Sure. License your content however you want. That said, in the US a license prohibiting you from READING something just wouldn't be possible. You can limit distribution, copying, etc. This is how journalists can write about sneak previews or leaked information or misfiled court documents released when they should be under seal. The leaking <-- the distribution might violate a contract or a license, but the reading thereof is really not a thing that US law or Common law think they have a right to control, except in the case of the state classifying secrets. As well, here we have people saying "my song in 1983 that I put out on the radio, I don't want AI listening to that song." Did your license in 1983 prohibit computers from processing your song? Does that mean digital radio can't send it out? Essentially that ship has sailed, full stop, without new legislation.

On my last points, I think you're missing my point, Fan fiction is legal if you're not trying to profit from it. It is almost impossible to perfectly copy a painting, although some people are pretty good at it. I think it's perfectly legal to paint a super close copy of say Starry Night, and sell it as "Starry night by Jason Lotito." In any event, the discourse right now claims its wrong for AI to look at and learn from paintings and photographs.

[jasonlotito]

> My proposal is that it's a luddish kneejerk reaction to things people don't understand and don't like.

Your proposal is moving goal posts.

> Allow me to update your sentence: "Every paper every scientist or academic wrote that references any copyrighted work becomes an issue".

No, I never said that. Fair Use exists.

> Fan fiction is legal if you're not trying to profit from it.

No, it's not.[1] You can make arguments that it should be, but, no.

[1] https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/is-fanfiction-legal/

> I think you're missing my point

I think you got called out, and you are now trying to reframe your original comment so it comes across as having accounted for the things you were called out on.

You think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. But, you rely on the fact that you think you do to lose the money you do.

[datavirtue]

"However, gen AI becomes an issue when you are using as your source stuff you don't have the copyright or license to."

Absolute horse shit. I can start a 1-900 answer line and use any reference I want to answer your question.

[jasonlotito]

> Absolute horse shit.

I agree, what followed was.

> I can start a 1-900 answer line and use any reference I want to answer your question

Yeah, that's not what we are talking about. If you think it was, you should probably do some more research on the topic.