Most active commenters
  • bawolff(5)
  • why_at(3)

←back to thread

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 33 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 3.735s | source | bottom
1. coderenegade ◴[03 Apr 25 21:10 UTC] No.43575460[source]▶
I don't see why this is an issue? The prompts imply obvious and well-known characters, and don't make it clear that they want an original answer. Most humans would probably give you similar answers if you didn't add an additional qualifier like "not Indiana Jones". The only difference is that a human can't exactly reproduce the likeness of a famous character without significant time and effort.

The real issue here is that there's a whole host of implied context in human languages. On the one hand, we expect the machine to not spit out copyrighted or trademarked material, but on the other hand, there's a whole lot of cultural context and implied context that gets baked into these things during training.

replies(4): >>43575500 #>>43575529 #>>43575609 #>>43575717 #
2. mvieira38 ◴[03 Apr 25 21:13 UTC] No.43575500[source]▶
It's an IP theft machine. Humans wouldn't be allowed to publish these pictures for profit, but OpenAI is allowed to "generate" them?
replies(5): >>43575542 #>>43575589 #>>43575645 #>>43576071 #>>43576143 #
3. dgunay ◴[03 Apr 25 21:16 UTC] No.43575529[source]▶
I think the point is that for a lot of them there are endless possible alternatives to the character design, but it still generates one with the exact same design. Why can't, for example, the image of Tomb Raider have a different colored tank top? Why is she wearing a tank top and not a shirt? Why does she have to have a gun? Why is she a busty, attractive brunette? These are all things that could be different but the dominance of Lara Croft's image and strong association with the words "tomb raider" in popular culture clearly influences the model's output.
replies(2): >>43575579 #>>43575618 #
4. pwarner ◴[03 Apr 25 21:16 UTC] No.43575542[source]▶
To me a lot has to do with what a human does with them one the tool generates them no?
5. echoangle ◴[03 Apr 25 21:20 UTC] No.43575579[source]▶
And how is that bad or surprising? It’s actually what I would expect from how AI works.
replies(1): >>43575924 #
6. why_at ◴[03 Apr 25 21:20 UTC] No.43575589[source]▶
I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around the law here because copyright is often very confusing.

If I ask an artist to draw me a picture of Indiana Jones and they do it would that be copyright infringement? Even if it's just for my personal use?

replies(3): >>43575767 #>>43575999 #>>43576536 #
7. jmull ◴[03 Apr 25 21:22 UTC] No.43575609[source]▶
Normally (well, if you're ethical) credit is given.

Also, there are IP limits of various sorts (e.g. copyright, trademark) for various purposes (some arguably good, some arguably bad), and some freedoms (e.g., fair use). There's no issue if this follows the rules... but I don't see where that's implemented here.

It looks like they may be selling IP they don't own the right to.

8. coderenegade ◴[03 Apr 25 21:23 UTC] No.43575618[source]▶
Because it's not clear that that's what you want. What's the context? Are we playing a game where I guess a character? Is it a design session for a new character based on a well known one, maybe a sidekick? Is it a new take on an old character? Are you just trying to remember what a well-known character looks like, and giving a brief prompt?

It's not clear what the asker wants, and the obvious answer is probably the culturally relevant one. Hell, I'd give you the same answers as the AI did here if I had the ability to spit out perfect replicas.

9. victorbjorklund ◴[03 Apr 25 21:26 UTC] No.43575645[source]▶
I would 100% be allowed to draw an image of Indiana Jones in illustrator. There is no law against me drawing his likeness.
replies(5): >>43575660 #>>43575721 #>>43575766 #>>43578622 #>>43581506 #
10. pier25 ◴[03 Apr 25 21:27 UTC] No.43575660{3}[source]▶
No, you aren't allowed to monetize an image of Indiana Jones even if you made it yourself.
replies(1): >>43575959 #
11. runarberg ◴[03 Apr 25 21:32 UTC] No.43575717[source]▶
Overfitting is generally a sign of a useless model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting

replies(1): >>43586021 #
12. echoangle ◴[03 Apr 25 21:32 UTC] No.43575721{3}[source]▶
But would you be allowed to publish it in the same way the AI companies do?
13. kod ◴[03 Apr 25 21:36 UTC] No.43575766{3}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...

replies(2): >>43575907 #>>43575926 #
14. Avicebron ◴[03 Apr 25 21:36 UTC] No.43575767{3}[source]▶
IANAL, but if OpenAI makes any money/commercial gains from producing a Ghibli-esque image when you ask, say you pay a subscription to OpenAI. What percentage of that subscription is owed to Ghibli for running Ghibli art through OpenAI's gristmill and providing the ability to create that image with that "vibe/style" etc. How long into perpetuity is OpenAI allowed to re-use that original art whenever their model produces said similar image. That seems to be the question.
replies(1): >>43575872 #
15. why_at ◴[03 Apr 25 21:48 UTC] No.43575872{4}[source]▶
Yeah that's fair, I'm trying to create an analogy to other services which are similar to help me understand.

If e.g. Patreon hosts an artist who will draw a picture of Indiana Jones for me on commission, then my money is going to both Patreon and the artist. Should Patreon also police their artists to prevent reproducing any copyrighted characters?

replies(2): >>43576029 #>>43576178 #
16. recursive ◴[03 Apr 25 21:51 UTC] No.43575907{4}[source]▶
Copyright protection doesn't prevent an illustrator from drawing the thing.
replies(1): >>43576970 #
17. SV_BubbleTime ◴[03 Apr 25 21:52 UTC] No.43575924{3}[source]▶
Exactly. We designed systems that work on attention and inference… and then surprised that it returns popular results?
18. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 21:52 UTC] No.43575926{4}[source]▶
I don't think those links support the point you are trying to make (i assume you are disagreeing with parent). Copyright law is a lot more complex then just a binary, and fictional characters certainly don't enjoy personality rights.
replies(1): >>43575977 #
19. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43575959{4}[source]▶
That depends. There are situations where you are. Satire in particular would be a common one, but there can be others.

Rules around copyright (esp. Fair use) can be very context dependent.

replies(1): >>43576061 #
20. kod ◴[03 Apr 25 21:57 UTC] No.43575977{5}[source]▶
harrison ford certainly does

edit - also, I wasn't making a binary claim, the person I was responding to was: "no law". There are more than zero laws relevant to this situation. I agree with you that how relevant is context dependent.

21. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 22:01 UTC] No.43575999{3}[source]▶
Probably that would be a derrivative work. Which means the original owner would have some copyright in it.

It may or may not be fair use, which is a complicated question (ianal).

22. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 22:04 UTC] No.43576029{5}[source]▶
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works has some commentary on how this works you might find interesting
replies(1): >>43576297 #
23. pier25 ◴[03 Apr 25 22:08 UTC] No.43576061{5}[source]▶
Those are the exceptions that confirm the rule, as they say.
24. Smithalicious ◴[03 Apr 25 22:18 UTC] No.43576143[source]▶
Won't somebody think of the billionaire IP holders? The horror.
replies(1): >>43576976 #
25. ◴[03 Apr 25 22:22 UTC] No.43576178{5}[source]▶
26. why_at ◴[03 Apr 25 22:36 UTC] No.43576297{6}[source]▶
Thanks for the link.

I get that copyright is a bit of a minefield, and there's some clear cases that should not be allowed, e.g. taking photos of a painting and selling them

That said, I still get the impression that the laws are way too broad and there would be little harm if we reduced their scope. I think we should be allowed to post pictures of Pokemon toys to Wikipedia for example.

I'm willing to listen to other points of view if people want to share though

replies(1): >>43576718 #
27. xboxnolifes ◴[03 Apr 25 23:05 UTC] No.43576536{3}[source]▶
I would think yes. Consider the alternate variation where the artist proactively draws Indiana Jones, in all his likeness, and attempts to market and sell it. The same exchange is ultimately happening, but this clearly is copyright infringement.
28. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 23:32 UTC] No.43576718{7}[source]▶
Keep in mind that wikimedia takes a rather strict view. In real life the edge cases of copyright tend to be a bit risk-based - what is the chance someone sues you? What is the chance the judge agrees with them?

Not to mention that wikimedia commons, which tries to be a globally reusable repository ignores fair use (which is context dependent), which covers a lot of the cases where copyright law is just being reduculous.

29. asadotzler ◴[04 Apr 25 00:12 UTC] No.43576970{5}[source]▶
but selling it is another and these ai companies sell their IP theft with a monthly subscription.
30. asadotzler ◴[04 Apr 25 00:14 UTC] No.43576976{3}[source]▶
And the small up and coming artists whose work is also stolen, AI-washed, and sold to consumers for a monthly fee, destroying the market for those up and coming artists to sell original works. You don't get to pretend this is only going to hurt big players when there are already small players whose livelihoods have been ruined.
31. otabdeveloper4 ◴[04 Apr 25 05:24 UTC] No.43578622{3}[source]▶
You 100% wouldn't be allowed to sell your Indiana Jones drawing services.
32. mvieira38 ◴[04 Apr 25 12:48 UTC] No.43581506{3}[source]▶
You wouldn't be able to offer a service to draw 1 to 1 recreations of Indiana Jones movie frames, though...
33. og_kalu ◴[04 Apr 25 18:21 UTC] No.43586021[source]▶
His point is that it's only overfitting if the model won't return new content when you clarify you're not just asking for the obvious answer from the context.