Ah but go back a step, how did this also very left silicone valley company with new york funding go about creating this algorithm which you are arguing is transformative?
They had to make or obtain unauthorised copies of the art. They didn't sit and copy as best they can each by hand (as is permitted and expected in art galleries). They downloaded an exact and unauthorised copy, for commercial purposes. They may have then transformed it. But the act of doing this first step infringed on IP laws which they then hope to use for their own benefit.
Now I am rather sympathetic to the doing away of 'IP' entirely. It's just words and thoughts which shouldn't be owned, and copyright has been extended to an insane length through corrupt means. The whole thing is nonsense. But in a system where there is IP, these lefty silicone valley corps and ai enthusiast model and lora makers are making and using actual copies to feed their algorithms (and not then doing the respectable thing in all cases, and making their stuff open source in turn, I'd respect that)
You can't draw a legal distinction between buying a DVD to watch and buying a DVD to show the images to your Neural Network.
If someone made their images available on the web, then they don't get to pick and choose who gets to see them. Besides, it can not be enforced. In fact, there is no real, legal distinction between viewing a digital image and copying a digital image. The very process of putting the image on a screen requires a copy be made into the memory of a computer, and probably onto the hard drive swapfile cache.
Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to subject a web image to intensive algorithmically driven analysis? JPG compression does that.
The distinction, in law, has always been: "Did they sell a copy of that image?" With neural network training, the answer is clearly: 'No'
Your legal arguments amount to not liking Deep Learning Neural Networks, and then, post hoc, making a special case for them.
Well, sorry buddy, that isn't what the law says. If you want to argue we should just ban NNs, then make that case. BUT as it stands, there is no tort to apply. I don't even think that you can show that harm has been done.
"But he trained his Neural Network to produce images in the style of Picasso!"
So fucking what? The value of AI images in the style of Picasso is roughly zero. The value of real Picasso paintings remains unaffected.
"As a working artist I now have to compete with Neural art!"
And musicians have to compete with Spotify. CDs had to compete with iTunes. Movie Theaters had to compete with Netflix. Show me the direct, specific harm and then we can discuss what torts to apply.
Ah but go back a step, how did this also very left silicone valley company with new york funding go about creating this algorithm which you are arguing is transformative?
They had to make or obtain unauthorised copies of the art. They didn't sit and copy as best they can each by hand (as is permitted and expected in art galleries). They downloaded an exact and unauthorised copy, for commercial purposes. They may have then transformed it. But the act of doing this first step infringed on IP laws which they then hope to use for their own benefit.
Now I am rather sympathetic to the doing away of 'IP' entirely. It's just words and thoughts which shouldn't be owned, and copyright has been extended to an insane length through corrupt means. The whole thing is nonsense. But in a system where there is IP, these lefty silicone valley corps and ai enthusiast model and lora makers are making and using actual copies to feed their algorithms (and not then doing the respectable thing in all cases, and making their stuff open source in turn, I'd respect that)
You can't draw a legal distinction between buying a DVD to watch and buying a DVD to show the images to your Neural Network.
If someone made their images available on the web, then they don't get to pick and choose who gets to see them. Besides, it can not be enforced. In fact, there is no real, legal distinction between viewing a digital image and copying a digital image. The very process of putting the image on a screen requires a copy be made into the memory of a computer, and probably onto the hard drive swapfile cache.
Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to subject a web image to intensive algorithmically driven analysis? JPG compression does that.
The distinction, in law, has always been: "Did they sell a copy of that image?" With neural network training, the answer is clearly: 'No'
Your legal arguments amount to not liking Deep Learning Neural Networks, and then, post hoc, making a special case for them.
Well, sorry buddy, that isn't what the law says. If you want to argue we should just ban NNs, then make that case. BUT as it stands, there is no tort to apply. I don't even think that you can show that harm has been done.
"But he trained his Neural Network to produce images in the style of Picasso!"
So fucking what? The value of AI images in the style of Picasso is roughly zero. The value of real Picasso paintings remains unaffected.
"As a working artist I now have to compete with Neural art!"
And musicians have to compete with Spotify. CDs had to compete with iTunes. Movie Theaters had to compete with Netflix. Show me the direct, specific harm and then we can discuss what torts to apply.