OpenAI could be fined up to $150,000 for each piece of infringing content.
  • BURN@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    1 year ago

    Google web integrity is very much different than what I’m proposing. “Nobody” was more in relation to regulating this.

    I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on (edit: commercial) use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

    A creative work is not a reproduceable quantifiable product. No two are exactly alike until they’re mass produced.

    Your analogy works more with a person rather than a pen, in that why is it ok when a person reads something and uses it as inspiration and not a computer? This comes back around to my argument about transformative works. An AI cannot add anything new, only guess based on historical knowledge. One of the best traits of the human race is our ability to be creative and bring completely new ideas.

    Edit: added in a commercial use specifier after it was pointed out that the rules over individuals would be too restrictive.

    • lily33@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

      I think that point’s worth discussing by itself - leaving aside the AI - as you wrote it quite general.

      I came up with some examples:

      • Let’s say an author really hates when quotes are taken out of context, and has stipulated that their book must only appear in whole. Do you think I should be able to decorate the interior of my own room with quotes from it?
      • What about an author that insists readers read no more than one chapter per day, to force them to think on the chapter before moving in. Would that be a valid use restriction?
      • If an author wrote a book to critique capitalism - and insists that is its purpose. But when I read the book, I interpreted it very differently, and saw in its pages a very strong argument for capitalism. Should I be able to use said book to make said argument for capitalism?

      Taking your statement at face value - the answers should be: no (I can’t decorate), yes (it’s a valid restriction), and no (I can’t use it to illustrate my argument). But maybe you didn’t mean it quite that strict? What do you think on each example and why?