The strategy for Google and others is obvious, bypassing copyright through lawyering up. Let's be real, few artists and creatives have the deep pockets to go toe-to-toe in a copyright fight against these companies, hence they're bypassing the legal system altogether and making sure their investments in AI have a chance to return a tidy profit.
They are essentially using their already legally challenged monopoly power to solicit mass-scale copyright infringement. FTC should seek an emergency injunction, and including the other companies making such a pledge in it as colluders.
Ah, the company once bought YouTube and made all YouTubers presumed violators of copyright when a complaint is made until proven innocent through a Kafkaesque process is now extending the convention to everyone who hasn't signed the YouTube terms of service too.
If an artist doesn't want to sign agreements with allowing Google to use their work and doesn't want their work to be taken and thrown into the Google Content Making Machine maybe they shouldn't have let others post it on online, falsely claiming it
Make money, lock people into ecosystem to make more money in the future.
That said, I think Google is going the wrong way here, I think Apple is going to destroy them on this front too as a result. Rather than indemnifying customers, they should train only on licensed and public domain content. This is what Adobe is doing and will almost certainly be what Apple will do, because Apple doesn't want to tarnish their image. Now Google is setting themselves up to be the evil and legally risky alternative. Indemni
Naruto v. Slater, and the current behavior of the copyright office denying copyright to AI generated works and Google's legal win in being able to scrape the web for their search engine being a use of copyrighted materials that does not require the copyright holders permission gives a pretty strong foundation for Google's belief that there is minimal risk.
Additionally, If Google wants to go full evil, they will use their AI to find the works that influenced the art that the person is claiming the generated
The strategy for Google and others is obvious, bypassing copyright through lawyering up. Let's be real, few artists and creatives have the deep pockets to go toe-to-toe in a copyright fight against these companies, hence they're bypassing the legal system altogether and making sure their investments in AI have a chance to return a tidy profit.
Ah, the company once bought YouTube and made all YouTubers presumed violators of copyright when a complaint is made until proven innocent through a Kafkaesque process is now extending the convention to everyone who hasn't signed the YouTube terms of service too.
If an artist doesn't want to sign agreements with allowing Google to use their work and doesn't want their work to be taken and thrown into the Google Content Making Machine maybe they shouldn't have let others post it on online, falsely claiming it
Make money, lock people into ecosystem to make more money in the future.
That said, I think Google is going the wrong way here, I think Apple is going to destroy them on this front too as a result. Rather than indemnifying customers, they should train only on licensed and public domain content. This is what Adobe is doing and will almost certainly be what Apple will do, because Apple doesn't want to tarnish their image. Now Google is setting themselves up to be the evil and legally risky alternative. Indemni
Naruto v. Slater, and the current behavior of the copyright office denying copyright to AI generated works and Google's legal win in being able to scrape the web for their search engine being a use of copyrighted materials that does not require the copyright holders permission gives a pretty strong foundation for Google's belief that there is minimal risk.
Additionally, If Google wants to go full evil, they will use their AI to find the works that influenced the art that the person is claiming the generated