Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Takahashi_Raya t1_iv0ammn wrote

Reply to comment by CapaneusPrime in [N] Class-action lawsuit filed against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI regarding the legality of GitHub Copilot, an AI-using tool for programmers by Wiskkey

>It's already been pretty well established that AI can be trained on copyrighted photos without issue.

It hasn't that is why ghetty has blocked ai and the art world is incredibly hatefull against AI and moving in the same way the creators started this lawsuit. There is a reason why university's have law and ethics classes regarding AI where it is explicitly told to not train on anything that is not public domain or licensed.

The fact facial recognition waa trained on millions of foto's that where present on facebook is still a sore sting in many people's minds. Dont confuse AI startups ignoring ethics and laws with reality.

If this lawsuit is a succes expect the ai tech world to be on fire very quickly. IP lawyers are frothing at their mouths for a while to get a slice of this

6

farmingvillein t1_iv1x778 wrote

> It hasn't that is why ghetty has blocked ai

You are right that OP is wrong (re:whether this is a settled legal issue)...but let's not pretend that ghetty [sic] doing so has to do with anything than attempted revenue maximization on their part.

Successful, prolific AI art devalues their portfolio of images, and they know that.

2

Takahashi_Raya t1_iv20ewh wrote

I mean that is very much part of it but it is indeed not the only reason ghetty did that.

1

farmingvillein t1_iv29u6c wrote

Getty and Shutterstock literally turned around and partnered with generative AI companies--who do exactly what you flag as a problem--to sell images on their platforms.

1

Takahashi_Raya t1_iv2c6qi wrote

Getty and shutterstock partnered with OpenAI (creators of Dall-E) and with BRIA. Both company's who's training data has been confirmed to be ethically sourced and only contain public DOMAIN images and images they have licenses too.

the ones who are under scrutiny from community's are Midjourney, stablediffusion & novelAI. when it comes to image gen due to them not adhering to the ethics in AI data usage.

OpenAI is mentioned in the current main topic of Co-Pilot as well due to microsoft using their codex model as part of co-pilot but that doesn't change that Dall-E is ethically used.

1

CapaneusPrime t1_iv0npgi wrote

You are wrong.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf

0

Ronny_Jotten t1_iv0vo01 wrote

That decision wasn't about copyrighted photos. It was about Google creating a books search index, which was allowed as fair use - just like their scanning of books for previews is. That's an entirely different situation than if Google had trained an AI to write books for sale, that contained snippets or passages from the digitized books.

The latter certainly would not be considered fair use under the reasoning given by the judge in the case. He found that the search algorithm maintained:

> consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders

and that its incorporation into the Google Books system works to increase the sales of the copyrighted books by the authors. None of this can be said about Microsoft's product. It would seem to clearly fail the tests for fair use.

3

CapaneusPrime t1_iv1lheh wrote

>That decision wasn't about copyrighted photos.

And every knowledge person agrees this protects images as well.

Training a generative AI does not adversely impact the rights of artists.

This is really transformative fair use.

0

waffles2go2 t1_iv1c4z3 wrote

>https://medium.com/@brianjleeofcl/this-piece-should-be-retracted-ca740d9a36fe

Relevant bits - perhaps spouting off with a N=1 isn't the best look...

In practice, when SCOTUS denies the petition, the ruling made by the relevant appellate court is a legal precedent only within the the district (Second) where the circuit court has made its ruling. This means that a different court—say, the Ninth, which includes Silicon Valley—could go ahead and issue a ruling that directly opposes that of the Second. At this point, it becomes more likely that SCOTUS would grant cert since it would be a problem that under the same federal legal code, two opposing versions of case law could exist; after which the court would hear arguments and then finally issue a decision. Until that hypothetical occurs, there is no precedent set by a SCOTUS decision to note in this matter.

So a programmer who doesn't understand the law should take a harder look at what they post on Reddit unless the like being totally owned...

3