let me give you and example,
say an elephant painted batman at the zoo, is it copyright infringment or fair use?
the zoo trained the elephant to paint the picture yet copyright only applies to human authors
that would be copyright infringment because the elephant is sentient and able to understand context and danger i guess.
whereas AI(LLMs) are not sentient and therefore are merely tools
iami
(i know it's another twiz11 post-and-run bait topic...)
the generative technology models are driven by wholesale mass scraping in the datasets, it's inherently legally toxic and plagiarism and is ultimately a big fuzzy logic parrot currently the big word of investors to generate Content(tm) with no effort to attain free Engagement(tm) around the same constant cost of energy usage as fake money; any handwaving of machine parrot to equal the human psyche is an act of absolute bullshittery, end of
I am not a lawyer nor am I clairvoyant, but I have an opinion, FWIW.
IMHO, twiz11, you are overthinking this.
One or more humans operate the AI. If there is a liability it befalls on the human, not on the AI.
A monkey may paint a Batman likeness, but it will not be the one publishing it, let alone profiting from it.
Until an AI acquires legal status, it will not be responsible for anything, same as the monkey. Human operators/handlers and/or AI creators will be the ones targeted by any potential litigation.
IIRC there is already court precedent saying that a non-human primate could not hold copyright on photos that it took. I doubt an elephant would be able to qualify.
In terms of 'AI' and copyright generally, there is a distinction between human brains and computers which needs to be either upheld or discarded. If I write my own novel, after having read your novel, you don't automatically have a copyright claim against me just because data about your novel existed in my brain at the time that I wrote my novel. You have to actually point at my novel and identify some aspect that you think infringes your work. It would seem reasonable to extend this logic to a 'brain' that is made of digital logic, except that data existing in a human brain has never been considered a 'copy' whereas the process of transferring data from disk to RAM has long been the legal rationale for why you need a license to execute software. Me reading something is not copying, but a CPU reading it is copying. Who knows if lawyers will stick to this idea, scrap it, or introduce new exceptions.
again another retro game on itch: https://90soft90.itch.io/shmup-salad
Lots of Batman fanart on Deviantart. I assume it's for sale and that DC just doesn't care so long as it stays small scale and doesn't malign or misrepresent their characters.
(I once purchased a print of a parody of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon on DA. I'm sure that was technically a copyright violation, but the rights owner presumably can't be bothered going after things like this.)
Is this too much voodoo?
Errius wrote on 2024-02-27, 06:07:Lots of Batman fanart on Deviantart. I assume it's for sale and that DC just doesn't care so long as it stays small scale and doesn't malign or misrepresent their characters.
maligning and misrepresenting superheroes has definitely been the much exercised prerogative of the copyright holders in the last decade 😀
gerry wrote on 2024-02-27, 09:55:Errius wrote on 2024-02-27, 06:07:Lots of Batman fanart on Deviantart. I assume it's for sale and that DC just doesn't care so long as it stays small scale and doesn't malign or misrepresent their characters.
maligning and misrepresenting superheroes has definitely been the much exercised prerogative of the copyright holders in the last decade 😀
theres public domain superheros/villians you can malign and misrepresent hehe
but seriously public domain should include a liability limitation clause like the public domain dedication licenses like CC0
iami
Errius wrote on 2024-02-27, 06:07:Lots of Batman fanart on Deviantart. I assume it's for sale and that DC just doesn't care so long as it stays small scale and doesn't malign or misrepresent their characters.
Selling of fanart has been generally tolerated by comic book companies. You see it at conventions where lots of artists sell prints of unauthorized fan art.
I suspect the companies realize the PR backlash of trying to shut that down would only hurt them in the long run.
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-02-28, 15:09:Errius wrote on 2024-02-27, 06:07:Lots of Batman fanart on Deviantart. I assume it's for sale and that DC just doesn't care so long as it stays small scale and doesn't malign or misrepresent their characters.
Selling of fanart has been generally tolerated by comic book companies. You see it at conventions where lots of artists sell prints of unauthorized fan art.
I suspect the companies realize the PR backlash of trying to shut that down would only hurt them in the long run.
i see that and wonder how do they get the license to sell that stuff, i mean for a small proprietor. Licensed merchandise doesnt feel well with me, the material is cheap and its more of something you show off on a shelf.
its equivalent to shovelware where you slap a big brand on it and hope it sells but take away that big brand and its worse than useless.
iami
