Comment by huytersd
3 years ago
Why do you have to prove that? There is no replication (except in very rare cases), how someone draws a line should not be copyrightable.
3 years ago
Why do you have to prove that? There is no replication (except in very rare cases), how someone draws a line should not be copyrightable.
Therein lies the crux of the issue: AI is not “someone”. We need to approach this without anthropomorphizing the AI.
You are right, AI is nothing but a tool akin to a pen or a brush.
If you draw Mickey Mouse with a pencil and you publish (and sell) the drawing who is getting the blame? Is the pencil infringing the copyright? No, it's you.
Same with AI. There is nothijg wrong with using copyrighted works to train an algorithm, but if you generate an image and it contains copyrighted materials you are getting sued.
But there is. You are arguably making unauthorized copies to train.
11 replies →
Companies aren't someone, yet in the US we seem to give them rights of someone.
They are someone in the eyes of the law. They just have a different set of rights.