"Imagine with Meta AI" turns prompts into images, trained using public Facebook data.
    • Esqplorer@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      I wonder how they worked around user violations of copyright… Imagine all the content uploaded to Instagram/Facebook that the poster didn’t create but simply uploaded their download/screenshot.

      • Mahlzeit@feddit.deEnglish
        02·
        2 years ago

        That shouldn’t be an issue. If you look at an unauthorized image copy, you’re not usually on the hook (unless you are intentionally pirating). It’s unlikely that they needed to get explicit “consent” (ie license the images) in the first place.

        • GiveMemes@jlai.luEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          Yeah but is it the same thing for a human to view data and an AI model to be trained on it? Not in my opinion as an AI doesn’t understand the concept of intellectual property and just spits out the most likely next word whereas a person can recognize when they are copying something.

          • Mahlzeit@feddit.deEnglish
            01·
            2 years ago

            I understand. The idea would be to hold AI makers liable for contributory infringement, reminiscent of the Betamax case.

            I don’t think that would work in court. The argument is much weaker here than in the Betamax case, and even then it didn’t convince. But yes, it’s prudent to get the explicit permission, just in case of a case.

            • GiveMemes@jlai.luEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              Doesn’t really seem the similar to me at all. One is a thing that’s actively making new content. Another is a machine with the purpose of time-shifting broadcasted content that’s already been paid for.

              It’s reminiscent insofar as personal AI models on individual machines would go, but completely different as for corporate and monetizable usage.

              Like if somebody sold you an AI box that you had to train yourself that would be reminiscent of the betamax case.

              • Mahlzeit@feddit.deEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                Yes, if it’s new content, it’s obviously no copy; so no copyvio (unless derivative, like fan fiction, etc.). I was thinking of memorized training data being regurgitated.

                • GiveMemes@jlai.luEnglish
                  01·
                  2 years ago

                  Yeah I just think that ingesting a bucnh of novels and rearranging their contents into a new piece of work (for example) is still copyright infringement. It doesn’t need to be the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars word for word to get copyright stricken. Similar to how in the music sphere it doesn’t need to be the same exact melody.

                  Edit: Glad you down voted instead of responding. Really shows the strength of your argument…

  • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    So I assume they added any necessary stuff to the TOS to allow this.

    My question is if there’s any legal mechanism to prevent this on other platforms? Pixelfed for example.

    Companies will likely federate and pull images regardless, but can we go after them when they’re caught? Nothing prevents them from taking the images for internal R&D, but at least we can stop them from selling products with that training data