X years past the death of the copyright owner
VERY strong disagree; copyright should never have been expanded to it being "author's life plus
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Basically, it expired WITHIN the lifetime so the public domain had a regular influx of new material, and so that creators who would benefit from their copyright, would still have to create, which'd perpetuate the cycle of creation, and eventual public domain enriching.
Making available copyrighted works was enough to get a verdict.
*Copyright infringing. If it were merely being copyrighted that made distributing it bad then you wouldn'ty be able to share that Creative Commons licensed song you or someone else made, since it'd still be a "copyrighted work" due to copyright in the US being automatic upon an eligible work being put into a fixed tangible medium.
And, since AI-produced crap isn't copyrightable, no publisher wants to touch it with an eleven-foot Finn (never mind a 10' pole).
Not copyrightable if you just take what is generated, but if you modify it enough, it can absolutely IIRC - making it not useless per-se (depending on how much human touch is needed).
Why can't I get a high quality printer to make my own money?
IMO that's a hell of a false equivalence, on many levels.
"We don't consider the copying of this text to train language model fair use
I mean, that wouldn't be the boss' choice - that is decided in the courts, and whether it is a fair use or not is still up in the air. (This would also age like milk if it was ruled to be a fair use).
Are your children building a business model based on the work of others?
In the simplest sense, isn't that what everyone does in some way or form?
they come in waves to make it harder to know if a new hack was detectable or not.
Perhaps this is a really stupid question, but would those who are working on cheats be able to determine that anyways? It seems like something that could be deduced rather easily.
The AI dataset includes the original art.
The training set, or data set used to make images? (since both are sets that exist, but are different sets for different purposes. The latter
What's special about open source models?
What I mean is, unlike closed source models, I am struggling to see how you'd enforce such things on them.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth