UK arts and media reject plan to let AI firms use copyrighted material | Coalition of musicians, photographers and newspapers insist existing copyright laws must be respected

11 comments

1. To be honest, an opt-out mechanism didn’t make any sense.

   I can be expected to prove that I declined access to my content.

   It’s the other way around. You gotta get permission to use my content.

2. If you can’t do business without breaking the law you don’t have a viable company.

3. Considering all the drama over music and movie downloads in the past, it’s no surprise copyright owners are going to say no, and I can’t say I blame them.

4. This is going to add an extra step to AI processing, something that people often fail to do…

   I just created a new bit of music… it was Jin Kazama’s theme… SHIT!!! Okay how about this new track… it was Jin Kazama’s theme again!!! FECK!!!

5. I do feel like in general we are getting too comfortable with AI Generated stuff.

   It’s getting to the stage now or at the least very soon where AI generated images and videos are going to be indistinguishable from actual images and videos.

   The National Crime Agency has even admitted that they can’t even tell in a lot of cases the difference between real CSAM images and AI generated CSAM images. That sentence alone is absolutely terrifying. What’s going to be next?

   Also, why hasn’t there been any immediate regulations on AI Generated stuff? The longer this is going to continue, the more damage it’s going to cause to society.

   Don’t get me wrong, I think copyright is ridiculous in a lot of cases but I’m against artificial intelligence for a completely different reason.

6. Thank god. As if our rights as artists aren’t bad enough as it is!

7. I say nationalise it. Allow the ai to use works that came from national sources but apply a tax on the use of the ai so that it puts money back into the economy with a stipulation that it should be visably advertised in whatever works use it.

   National sources such as created by the BBC, influenced through UK based schooling, based on UK history, though I agree this would need to bebetter defined.

   This way, the use of the copyrighted material directly funds the education and training of the future of their own industry, while allowing the UK to capitalise on ai.

   We shouldn’t really be shying away from technological advancement, we pushed the last industrial revolution, why shy away from advancement when we know China isn’t going to give a shit about copyright?

8. Lol good luck enforcing this.

   What the hell U gonna do to stop me training on top of the base models by including Ur content.

   I’m declaring here that I will do this. now stop me

9. that battle is lost. you can’t put the genie back in the bottle

10. It’s a tough one, in one way you can’t copyright because other humans are looking at and been inspired by your art work, and given the fact human brains can remember both visual and aesthetic traits of work, that can be equated to an ML model doing so. On the other hand current ML models are not (anywhere near) to biologically equivalent to human brains, despite the core principles. Again though while they do learn a ‘latent’ version of your art work, they don’t actually learn a copy.

    As someone in ML my side has switched multiple times on this. But yeah generally I do think copyrights should be respected here, especially if relying on specific artists work is what you are doing to better your ML model. In that case there is no fair use argument really. But it’s a grey area and I wouldn’t want to be a lawyer on a case like this!

    As much as I love AI art and amazed by it’s progress from a pure science standpoint (see progress in Diffusion Models), I actually prefer and only really buy pieces of human made art.
    *(For reference my ML work uses purely synthetic data I generate myself lol so no attacking please!)*

11. Personally, I think the artists are wrong here.

    It’s not copying their work, it’s learning from it. The same way that any artists looks at the works of others and notes styles/techniques.

    There are whole disciplines of art that can be traced back to a single individual. Everyone after that point must either have used them as inspiration OR independently invented the idea. If the latter, why so many thousands of years with nobody thinking of it, followed by it being a common idea?

    If it were outputting something similar to what the artist created, that would be an issue but using a style or palette it’s seen somewhere isn’t an issue IMO.

Comments are closed.