• diffuselight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a bullshit article by a bullshit website. The law in question is a decade old. Japan hasn’t decided anything - they are slow to decide new things. It’s just this page clickbaiting.

    • dwks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That explain their birth rate issue, it’s new issue for them too 😂

  • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The absolute right decision. Generative art is a fair use machine, not a plagiarism one. We need more fair use, not less.

      • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do realize individuals can train neural networks on their own hardware, right? Generative art and generative text is not something owned by corporations — and in fact what is optimistically becoming apparent is that it is specifically difficult to build moats around a generative model, meaning that it’s especially hard for for corporations to own this technology outright — but those corporations are the only ones that benefit from expanding copyright. Also, I disagree with you also. A trained model is a transformative work, as are the works you can generate with those models. Applying the four factor fair use test comes out heavily on the side of fair use.

      • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Expanding the terms of copyright to 70 years after the life of the author actually didn’t help artists make art. Expanding copyright to cover “training” will result in more costly litigation, make things harder for small artists and creators, and further centralize the corporate IP hoarders that can afford to shoulder the increased costs of doing business. There are inumerable content creators that could and will make use of generative art to make content and they should be allowed to prosper. We need more fair use, not less.

  • !ozoned@lemmy.world@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if the work they used to train it isn’t a copyright violation canthr things it creates be copyrighted? I hate copyright. It doesn’t protect the people it should. Public domain everything that these AI create, companies will stay away, and we support creators directly.

  • mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So Japan is telling us, that intellectual property is holding back its progress in AI. so are they recognizing that IP is a hinderess to progress and innovation ? should we expect this to nullify other IP legislation ? is this heading to court?

  • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I sympathize with artists who might lose their income if AI becomes big, as an artist it’s something that worries me too, but I don’t think applying copyright to data sets is a long term good thing. Think about it, if copyright applies to AI data sets all that does is one thing: kill open source AI image generation. It’ll just be a small thorn in the sides of corporations that want to use AI before eventually turning them into monopolies over the largest, most useful AI data sets in the world while no one else can afford to replicate that. They’ll just pay us artists peanuts if anything at all, and use large platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Artstation, and others who can change the terms of service to say any artist allows their uploaded art to be used for AI training - with an opt out hidden deep in the preferences if we’re lucky. And if you want access to those data sources and licenses, you’ll have to pay the platform something average people can’t afford.

    • Phanatik@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I completely disagree. The vast majority of people won’t be using the open source tools unless the more popular ones become open source (which I don’t think is likely). Also, a tool being open source doesn’t mean it’s allowed to trample over an artist’s rights to their work.

      They’ll just pay us artists peanuts if anything at all, and use large platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Artstation, and others who can change the terms of service to say any artist allows their uploaded art to be used for AI training - with an opt out hidden deep in the preferences if we’re lucky.

      This is going to happen anyway. Copyright law has to catch up and protect against this, just because they put it in their terms of service, doesn’t mean it can’t be legislated against.

      This was the whole problem with OpenAI anyway. They decided to use the internet as their own personal dataset and are now charging for it.

      • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think even more private property is the answer here. This is ultimately a question of economics - we don’t like that a) we’re being put out of jobs, and b) it’s being done without our consent / anything in return. These are problems that we can address without throwing even more monopolosation power into the equation, which is what IP is all about - giving artists a monopoly over their own content, which mostly benefits large media corporations, not independent artists.

        I’d much rather we tackled the problem of automation taking our jobs in a more heads on manner via something like UBI or negative income taxes, rather than a one-off solution like even more copyright that only really serves to slow this inevitability down. You can regulate AI in as many ways as you want, but that’s adding a ton of meaningless friction to getting stuff done (e.g. you’d have to prove your art wasn’t made by AI somehow) when the much easier and more effective solution is something like UBI.

        The consent question is something that needs a bit more of a radical solution - like democratising work, something that Finland has done to their grocery stores, the biggest grocery chains are democratically owned and run by the members (consumer coops). We’ll probably get to something like that on a large scale… eventually - but I think it’s probably a bigger hurdle than UBI. Then you’d be able to vote on what ways an organisation operates, including if or how it builds AI data sets.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I appreciate this take, especially when applying copyright in the manner being proposed extends the already ambiguous grey area of “fair use”, which is most often used against artists.

      • Pulp@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who gives a shit about artists rights? We need to move on with the progress like we always have.

  • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a strange move from a country that is usually the most overprotective when it comes to copyright. Though I guess if you view it from a “pro-business” view then it might make sense. Sucks a ton for artists though.

  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not thrilled that copyright exists and that it is used as a weapon against innovation and artistic expression. But if it’s going to exist, I want it to actually fucking protect my works.