US Copyright hearing on AI coming up. Thoughts? No?

US Copyright hearing on AI coming up. Thoughts? No /misc/ ITT.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pointless. The real issues will be dealt with in courts.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Artists ultimately shot themselves in the foot by getting the government involved which will 100% of the time side with corporations that have historically fricked artista in the ass. Good shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They'll be fricking themselves in the ass then. government jobs will be the first to be automated by AI. Have you seen how many staff they're paying for?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      First the AI took their art, then the machine god took their brain matter.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Even if using Copyrighted stuff in training isn't allowed
    You can always just train an AI on non-copyrighted works, it's not like there aren't 2000 years of free art/photography for us to use...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      copyright is a spook

      >just train everything on the digital media from 200 years ago, bro

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >2000 years of photography
      Anon, I...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        morons don't understand the extent to which everything is copyrighted and how much you have to pay to use even 100 year-old material. there's no such thing as a public domain.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        2000 years of material I should have said.
        2000 years of text and art
        100 years of photography which btw is also trivial to get. everything you upload to any website ever you practically give away any rights you had on it...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Photography didn't exist until 1923
          Anon, I...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Camera obscura has been a well-known technology since at least 500 BC. I don't know if they had access to any light-sensitive materials back then, but even tracing the outlines by hand could be thought of as a primitive form of photography.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No chance. How did I do?

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >We can use existing prior art from other artists to learn from
    >Often by directly copying it repeatedly first
    >Its okay if we mash up shit we find on google images in photoshop or other editing programs and redraw the final version over the top of it to make it 'ours' using an existing image as a 'guide'
    >It's called a 'reference' sweaty *sips tea*
    >No, AI should not be allowed to learn concepts from prior existing art which is only 5% of what we do with using prior art to make new art
    >What do you mean? JUST BECAUSE OKAY?!

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >No /misc/ ITT.
    lmao. you sound like those chuds on youtube that put "no copyright infringement intended" in the description. but yeah, woo, another AI thread, just what we needed, thanks OP.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The whole copyright and law debate is really pointless.
    This is ultimately a matter of national security. It's Darwinian in nature, whichever country limits their AI the least is going to "win". You can bet your ass China won't give a damn, so neither can anyone else, unless you're earning social credit for Xi Jinping's Basilisk.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If any laws come out of this it's gonna hurt real artists more, create rules that only big corporations can follow, and grant new powers to copyright trolls everywhere.
    In my opinion AI art is akin to automated sampling in music. You should probably clear the rights with all those you're basing the generated output off of it you're using the work commercially, otherwise all output should be considered public domain or have an explicit non commercial clause.
    I see the biggest issue is artists are worried about is potentially losing work, if the artists can get paid for allowing their work to be used in commercial AI models then everyone should be happy, right? Those who oppose can opt out, and those who want in can opt in, and be compensated for it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >In my opinion AI art is akin to automated sampling in music. You should probably clear the rights with all those you're basing the generated output off of it you're using the work commercially, otherwise all output should be considered public domain or have an explicit non commercial clause.
      The generated output is not based off another artwork when you create a composition, and you can quite literally compose an image to your liking, X here, Y there, character in Z pose over there etc (control net, posex, open pose, etc), you can design a composition visually with latent couple or other tools, unlike digital artists that quite often do base their images off other artwork as either references, or placing multiple images in a canvas in photoshop and drawing over the top of it in their style.

      You can even sketch a rough image to use as the compostion, mountains there, moon there, watch tower in lower left, dirt road there etc.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, sure. I guess, but the models are still derived from artwork that artists have very generously made public without much restrictions on how you use it. I feel like it would show some goodwill to compensate those who's work is what made your product viable, regardless of if they deserve it.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >No /misc/ ITT.
    no real answers then
    fine, I won't tell you what will happen

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >US
    not my problem

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *