> Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs [1]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]
replies(1):
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]
>The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA
Emphasis mine. I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.
I think most artist who had their works "trained by AI" without compensation would disagree with you.
Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked.
> The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws.
All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws.
Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?
This article is literally about the copyright office finding AI companies violating copyright law by training their models on copyrighted material. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.
My opinion on the matter at hand is this: Artists who complain about GenAI use the hypothetical that you mentioned, where if you can accurately recreate a copyrighted work through specific model usage, then any distribution of the model is a copyright violation. That's why, according to the argument, fair use does not apply.
The real problem with that is that there's a mismatch between the fair use analysis and the actual use at issue. The complaining artists want the fair use inquiry to focus on the damage to the potential market to works in their particular style. That's where the harm is according to them. However, what they use to even get into that stage is the copyright infringement allegation that I described earlier: that the models contain their works on a fixed manner which can be derived without permission.
Not to mention the fact that this position means putting the malicious usage of the models for outright copyright infringement at the output level above the entire class of new works that can be created by its usage. It's effectively saying "because these models can technically be used in an infringing way, it infringes our copyright and any creative potential that these models could help with are insignificant in comparison to that simple fact. Of course, that's not the actual real problem, which is that they output completely new works that compete with our originals, even when they aren't derivatives of, nor substantially similar to, any individual copyrighted work".
Here's a very good article outlining my position in a more articulate way: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-ai-art