Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.

Without a constant stream of stolen training data, the "AI" piracy bleed-through and isomorphic plagiarism business model is unsustainable.

We look forward to liquidating the GPU data-centers at a heavy discount. =3

▲

locknitpicker 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.

I'm skeptical of this line of reasoning. Major content providers have no problem with copyright, even when content is completely produced by anonymous contributors. Is this supposed to become an issue when you eliminate some anonymous contributors?

▲

Joel_Mckay 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>Major content providers have no problem with copyright

Besides getting sued for piracy, settling out-of-court with Disney, and or externalizing DMCA/RIAA take-down liabilities on users.

A human may transfer rights or "license" to another party in many circumstances, but may not re-sell a codified Coca-Cola logo trademark out of convenience.

All levels of the US courts concluded an "AI" can't transfer nor actually create content rights. Most WIPO members also seemed to follow the same consensus.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-selfi...

There was a similar issue with folks selling marginally pitch-shifted audio assets on the Unity and Web stores. Note, they didn't have the original legal right to license this content, and customers would get their content flagged eventually.

Some kids are cheeky pirating Sony and BBC libraries... exploiting peoples assumption buying an old CD set somehow magically gives the holder broadcast or game distribution rights.

Keep being skeptical, as it will keep you in business. =3

▲

yorwba 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not owning the rights to some content and somebody else owning those rights are not the same thing. If someone else owns the copyright and you redistribute their stuff without permission, they have grounds to sue you. If nobody owns the copyright, because it expired long ago or because it came into being without human creative input, you can sell it just fine. So can everyone else, of course. Now, if you put your own stuff on top, that you own the copyright to, those other people can no longer redistribute it without your permission, but you can. So there's hardly any risk in using uncopyrightable background art.

	▲	Joel_Mckay 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (it demonstrably can't even on a CEO live stream.) Most models will happily spew any statistically salient trademark, copyrighted and or patented code/music/images/video. Note too, GPL/LGPL is a contaminating license, so legal submarines will surface sooner or later if injected into closed-source projects. The "how" it happens part is just legally irrelevant "[piracy] with extra steps", but if you are interested in details see below. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-ai-voice-likeness-... Here is a simplified explanation of how vector search is done in many models: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c And a more detailed toy implementation to learn how to build your own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g