this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
859 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59575 readers
3611 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
859
Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
371 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You’re getting lost in the weeds here and completely misunderstanding both copyright law and the technology used here.

you're accusing me of what you are clearly doing after I've explained twice how you're doing that. I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. except:

Where copyright comes into play is in whether the new work produced is derivative or transformative.

except that the contention isn't necessarily over what work is being produced (although whether it's derivative work is still a matter for a court to decide anyway), it's regarding that the source material is used for training without compensation.

The problem is that as a consumer, if I buy a book for $12, I’m fairly limited in how much use I can get out of it.

and, likewise, so are these companies who have been using copyrighted material - without compensating the content creators - to train their AIs.

[–] bouncing@partizle.com -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

these companies who have been using copyrighted material - without compensating the content creators - to train their AIs.

That wouldn't be copyright infringement.

It isn't infringement to use a copyrighted work for whatever purpose you please. What's infringement is reproducing it.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It isn’t infringement to use a copyrighted work for whatever purpose you please.

and you accused me of "completely misunderstanding copyright law" lmao wow

[–] bouncing@partizle.com -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. I do. And I'm right.

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's infringement to use copyrighted material for commercial purposes.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

If I buy my support staff "IT for Dummies", and they then, sometimes, reproduce the same/similar advice (turn it off and on again), I owe the textbook writers money? That's news to me.

[–] bouncing@partizle.com 0 points 1 year ago

No, it isn't. There are enumerated rights a copyright grants the holder a monopoly over. They are reproduction, derivative works, public performances, public displays, distribution, and digital transmission.

Commercial vs non-commercial has nothing to do with it, nor does field of endeavor. And aside from the granted monopoly, no other rights are granted. A copyright does not let you decide how your work is used once sold.

I don't know where you guys get these ideas.