• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    it’s ok if you don’t know how copyright works. also maybe look into plagiarism. there’s a difference between relaying information you’ve learned and stealing work.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Training on publicly available material is currently legal. It is how your search engine was built and it is considered fair use mostly due to its transformative nature. Google went to court about it and won.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        can you point to the trial they won? I only know about a case that was dismissed.

        because what we’ve seen from ai so far is hardly transformative.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Sorry, I was talking about HiQ labs v. Linkedin. But there is Google v. Perfect 10 and Google v. Authors Guild that show how scrapping public data is perfectly fine and include the company in question.

          An image generator is trained on a billion images and is able to spit out completely new images on whatever you ask it. Calling it anything but transformative is silly, especially when such things as collage are considered transformative.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            eh, “completely new” is a huge stretch there. splicing two or ten movies together doesn’t give you an automatic pass.