Technology

59331 readers

5245 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

341

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

401 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

you aren't making any sense. people did fanarts and memes of the joker movie like crazy, they were all over the internet. there are tons and tons of fan arts of copyrighted material.

they fall under fair use and no one losses money because fan arts can't be used for commercial purposes, that would fall outside fair use and copyright holders will sue, of course.

how is that different from the AI generating an image containing copyrighted material? if someone started generating images of the joker and then selling them, yeah, sue the fuck out of them. but generating it without any commercial purpose is not illegal at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In many cases the AI company is "selling you" the image by making users pay for the use of the generator. Sure, there are free options, too - but just giving you an example.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

With that line of argument you can sue developers of 2d painting programmes and producers of graphics tablets. And producers of canvas, brushes and paint. Maybe even the landlord for renting out a studio? It's all means of production.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

You make an interesting point, but I can't help but feel it's not completely the same and you're reaching a bit. I feel like it'd be closer if GIMP, next to shape tools for squares and circles, literally had a 'Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker' shape. The crux of the issue as I see it in this part of the legal debate is whether or not AI companies are willing participants in the creation of potentially copyright infringing media.

It reminds me a bit of the debate around social media platforms and if they're legally responsible for the illegal or inappropriate content people keep uploading.