Is AI training using artistic work a fair use?

[voxo]

Prompts i used....Dunkirk to D-Day,Rembrandt...Gitfiddler might have the answer.. scans currently existing information on the web, and converts it into what seems like original paintings...The Dutch Master....

[Litterick]

From The Verge:

When deciding if something is fair use, there are a number of considerations, explains Daniel Gervais, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in intellectual property law and has written extensively on how this intersects with AI. Two factors, though, have “much, much more prominence,” he says. “What’s the purpose or nature of the use and what’s the impact on the market.” In other words: does the use-case change the nature of the material in some way (usually described as a “transformative” use), and does it threaten the livelihood of the original creator by competing with their works?

Considering the onus placed on these factors, Gervais says “it is much more likely than not” that training systems on copyrighted data will be covered by fair use. But the same cannot necessarily be said for generating content. In other words: you can train an AI model using other people’s data, but what you do with that model might be infringing. Think of it as the difference between making fake money for a movie and trying to buy a car with it.

[ccroft]

Best answer so far Litterick. I'd been pondering this whole thing for a while and sort of came up with intended use. There are millions of artists who study for years before considering the idea of making money at it, and many that do it to simply to enrich their lives. The people developing AI see a market and are planning on making a killing.

And once they have it strong enough it will without doubt put artists out of work. AI will do it quicker, with little drama, and no pesky artists involved at all to muck up the works.

The idea that it's fair use right up until they make a buck makes a lot of sense. It's how music works, or at least used to. How to distribute the royalties seems like a problem though. I was trying to figure out a scenario by which some $$ from AI might be steered towards the pension plans of the artists they used to develop it. Payed into SAG and other such organizations. Or something...

[Litterick]

Prompts i used....Dunkirk to D-Day,Rembrandt...Gitfiddler might have the answer.. scans currently existing information on the web, and converts it into what seems like original paintings...The Dutch Master....

In most scenes, the troops are shown in masses stranded on the beach, rather than attempting a military objective. This is not surprising, as they have disembarked on a narrow shore abutted by sandstone cliffs. Trapped betwixt sea and sandstone, the troops will be massacred if the enemy finds them.

The troops appear to have arrived in ships, rather than landing craft. The ships have been wrecked, impossibly close to the shore. In some scenes, troops are shown wading out to an empty sea and an uncertain future, an understandable reaction to their predicament.

While the pictures bear no resemblance to those of Rembrandt, the young artist does appear in one, with a lively disposition and hair that would not pass muster.

[Stevebol]

Part of the Hollywood strike is about regulating the royalty structure with regards to the use of AI training in acting and script writing.
But no actor, musician, writer or any artist develops their skills in isolation. A big part of training is a lifetime of exposure to the works of masters in the same field along with a more deliberate study of selected works. This is no different than training an AI model.

Musicians aren't required to pay royalties to their influences. Actors don't have to pay royalties to all the actors they grew up watching.

Is AI training an infringement of copyrights or is it a fair use?

Music has been around for thousand's of years. I don't see what it has to do with film and television. It's not my fight.

[Flat]

Wait a minute. Was this thread generated by ChatGPT?

[voxo]

i only put in 2 prompts..it looked more like the disaster at Dieppe 1942..troops were annihilated...yes the scenes were bizarre.where was Rommel..he was in charge of defences...no matter John Williams saved the day ..Magnifique....great comment

[Litterick]

Thank you. Dieppe was a terrible waste of Canadian lives.

John Williams saved the day on many occasions in a long career.

[voxo]

i know Rembrandt didnt paint war or conflict..i was after his dark earth tones and luminous highlights.....

[Stevebol]

Best answer so far Litterick. I'd been pondering this whole thing for a while and sort of came up with intended use. There are millions of artists who study for years before considering the idea of making money at it, and many that do it to simply to enrich their lives. The people developing AI see a market and are planning on making a killing.

And once they have it strong enough it will without doubt put artists out of work. AI will do it quicker, with little drama, and no pesky artists involved at all to muck up the works.

The idea that it's fair use right up until they make a buck makes a lot of sense. It's how music works, or at least used to. How to distribute the royalties seems like a problem though. I was trying to figure out a scenario by which some $$ from AI might be steered towards the pension plans of the artists they used to develop it. Payed into SAG and other such organizations. Or something...

When bands became unfashionable in the mid 80's, many musicians changed their priorities. Some got back into church music. A new generation was coming of age and they'd change the business models.
We seem to be at another crossroads now.
I think the strike will be settled before the end of the year. The consequences of waiting too long would be devastating. CA is the 5th largest economy in the world.

[ccroft]

You're right about the crossroads Stevebol. To me it looks a bit like what Photoshop did to the once gigantic pre-press industry of the 80's and 90's. Now everyone has a scanner and can make graphic design.

I don't think anyone saw the changes coming in the early days of development. Photoshop was developed for and used by the graphic design and pre-press houses of the time. They needed talented humans who studied and practised design, and understood the industry, the tools and the market.

This is different. The AI folks know they are going to compete directly with human creators. That is the business model: we'll beat them at their own game and put thousands of human writers out of work. Copy for advertising, instruction booklets, news articles and the like are probably already being affected. Movie scripts and novels are in the cross-hairs.

And then there's our music and visual arts and artists.