Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

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

    (theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
    1503 points participant3 | 12 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
    Show context
    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 #
    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 #
    1. 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 #
    2. pier25 ◴[03 Apr 25 21:27 UTC] No.43575660[source]▶
    No, you aren't allowed to monetize an image of Indiana Jones even if you made it yourself.
    replies(1): >>43575959 #
    3. echoangle ◴[03 Apr 25 21:32 UTC] No.43575721[source]▶
    But would you be allowed to publish it in the same way the AI companies do?
    4. kod ◴[03 Apr 25 21:36 UTC] No.43575766[source]▶
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...

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

    replies(2): >>43575907 #>>43575926 #
    5. recursive ◴[03 Apr 25 21:51 UTC] No.43575907[source]▶
    Copyright protection doesn't prevent an illustrator from drawing the thing.
    replies(1): >>43576970 #
    6. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 21:52 UTC] No.43575926[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 #
    7. bawolff ◴[03 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43575959[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 #
    8. kod ◴[03 Apr 25 21:57 UTC] No.43575977{3}[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.

    9. pier25 ◴[03 Apr 25 22:08 UTC] No.43576061{3}[source]▶
    Those are the exceptions that confirm the rule, as they say.
    10. asadotzler ◴[04 Apr 25 00:12 UTC] No.43576970{3}[source]▶
    but selling it is another and these ai companies sell their IP theft with a monthly subscription.
    11. otabdeveloper4 ◴[04 Apr 25 05:24 UTC] No.43578622[source]▶
    You 100% wouldn't be allowed to sell your Indiana Jones drawing services.
    12. mvieira38 ◴[04 Apr 25 12:48 UTC] No.43581506[source]▶
    You wouldn't be able to offer a service to draw 1 to 1 recreations of Indiana Jones movie frames, though...