GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      So if a tool is involved, it’s no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material?

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement?

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because a human has to use talent+effort to make something that’s fair use. They adapt a product into something that while similar is noticeably different. AI will

        1. make things that are not just similar but not noticeably different.

        2. There’s not an effort in creation. There’s human thought behind a prompt but not on the AI following it.

        3. If allowed to AI companies will basically copyright everything…

        • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          You are aware of the insane amounts of research, human effort and the type of human talent that is required to make a simple piece of software, let alone a complex artificial neural network model whose function is to try and solve whatever stuff…right?

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      What’s the difference? Humans are just the intent suppliers, the rest of the art is mostly made possible by software, whether photoshop or stable diffusion.

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?

      In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.

      But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.

      IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.