• RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    These days you train a “AI” to reproduce the copywritten assets, distribute your “AI” and then say the machine did it, so it’s not copyright.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Not really how copyright works but ok

      EDIT: The fact that you got an AI to replicate something that already exists does not invalidate the original rightholder’s copyright. Further, “AIs can’t hold a copyright” just means the person who prompted the AI owns the work, in the same way Photoshopping something doesn’t mean that Photoshop itself now owns the copyright (nor does Adobe). Thus, you still end up the person responsible for violating Nintendo’s copyright and trademarks, and we’re just doing the same thing with extra steps.

      • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but by OpenAIs line of argument, the model itself isn’t piracy/theft/rights-infringing.

        The output of the model might be, but that’s not the model creators problem. So by distributing the model, you’re no longer distributing infringing material.

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          The output of the model might be, but that’s not the model creators problem

          But it is the problem of the hypothetical person trying to launder copywritten assets through an AI. I guess you were probably just joking but it doesn’t make sense.

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Huh, I thought it was that it couldn’t qualify for copyright because it was ai produced. Not made by a human. Like the monkey selfie