Just a guy jumping from a hot mess into more prosperous waters.
My guess is search for toddlers, whose parents handed them a phone to keep busy while they rest or do something else. They’re the only demographic that does not know how to spell, or knows too few words to search effectively. But considering the American education system this could also apply to students who are illiterate despite completing the grade every year.
As someone who has spent their life translating for family this isn’t surprising. Nor is it any easier when they bring me poorly translated documents and hope I decipher machine diarrhea. The tech is still years behind being real world ready, especially with anything above 6th grade grammar and nuanced word choice that depends on context and sometimes dialect. But free is free so 🤷
The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that’s that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim’s likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.
Reading these comments has shown me that most users don’t realize that not all working artists are using 1099s and filing as an individual. Once you have stable income and assets (e.g. equipment) there are tax and legal benefits to incorporating your business. Removing copyright protections for large corporations will impact successful small artists who just wanted a few tax breaks.
That’s fine, but not the primary issue.
At some point these companies will need to get licenses for any copyrighted work that was part of the training data, or start over with public domain works only. The art may be data, but that data has legal owners whose rights grant control over it’s use.
Another way to think about is proprietary code. You can see it and learn from it at your leisure. But to use it commercially requires a license, one that clearly defines what can and cannot be done with it, as well as fair compensation.
The short version is that it’s a licensing issue. All art is free to view, but the moment you try to integrate it into a commercial product/service you’ll owe someone money unless the artist is given fair compensation in some other form.
For example, artists agree to provide a usage license to popular art sites to host and display their works. That license does not transfer to the guy/company scraping portfolios to fuel their AI. Unfortunately, as we can see from the article, AI may be able to generate but it still lacks imagination and inspiration; traits fundamental to creating truly derivative works. When money exchanges hands that denies the artist compensation because the work was never licensed and they are excluded from their portion of the sale.
Another example: I am a photographer uploading my images to a stock image site. As part of ToS I agree to provide a license to host, display, and relicense to buyers on my behalf. The stock site now offers an AI that create new images based on its portfolio. The catch is that all attributed works result in a monetary payment to the artists. When buyers license AI generated works based on my images I get a percentage of the sale. The stock site is legally compliant because it has a license to use my work, and I receive fair compensation when the images are used. The cycle is complete.
It gets trickier in practice, but licensing and compensation is the crux of the matter.
I’m convinced the AI had the hand on a loop. It’s like watching someone’s first presentation in speech and debate class. It will look better eventually, but I doubt it’ll figure out the subtle emphasis great body language adds to speech.
Found an earlier article by El Observador before the legislation passed. Under Uruguay’s old laws Spotify, YouTube, an other streaming platforms paid little to nothing in artist royalties. With the new legislation artists will now see fair compensation.
The Guardian does a better job explaining Spotify’s problem: do the royalties come from rights holders (I am assuming they’re referring to record labels) or the streaming services? The later case they believe will cause them to pay double what they’re paying for streaming rights.
The issue just needs to back to Uruguay’s government to sort out who pays the artist royalties, or if both labels and streaming share a proportionate responsibility.
The short version is that an actor’s AI double, and an AI amalgam of several actors, will be treated as a proxy for the actor(s). The actor can agree or decline the use of their AI proxy based on the scene, and are compensated for use of their likeness as if they had gone in person. It’s a pretty big win for actors considering studios wanted unlimited usage for a one time payment.
I don’t blame you. Even in a professional setting tagging is mind numbing and tedious. The only difference is without tagging you might miss an image that can be licensed and the business opportunity that needed it.
They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat it.
If we apply the current ruling of the US Copyright Office then the prompt writer cannot copyright if AI is the majority of the final product. AI itself is software and ineligible for copyright; we can debate sentience when we get there. The researchers are also out as they simply produce the tool–unless you’re keen on giving companies like Canon and Adobe spontaneous ownership of the media their equipment and software has created.
As for the artists the AI output is based upon, we already have legal precedent for this situation. Sampling has been a common aspect of the music industry for decades now. Whenever an musician samples work from others they are required to get a license and pay royalties, by an agreed percentage/amount based on performance metrics. Photographers and film makers are also required to have releases (rights of a person’s image, the likeness of a building) and also pay royalties. Actors are also entitled to royalties by licensing out their likeness. This has been the framework that allowed artists to continue benefiting from their contributions as companies min-maxed markets.
Hence Shutterstock’s terms for copyright on AI images is both building upon legal precedent, and could be the first step in getting AI work copyright protection: obtaining the rights to legally use the dataset. The second would be determining how to pay out royalties based on how the AI called and used images from the dataset. The system isn’t broken by any means, its the public’s misunderstanding of the system that makes the situation confusing.
There’s one that comes to mind: registration of works with the Copyright Office. When submitting a body of work you need to ensure that you’ve got everything in order. This includes rights for models/actors, locations, and other media you pull from. Having AI mixed in may invalidate the whole submission. It’s cheaper to submit related work in bulk, a fair amount of Loki materials could be in limbo until the application is amended or resubmitted.
This is your daily reminder to engage and boost Twitter alternatives such as Mastodon. It’s not enough to ignore Twitter. We must build communities to draw in users, show them social media can exist without Elon or Zuck. Only when good alternatives exist, with content and people sought after, do users feel safe to abandon old platforms.
Let’s break down some of the confusion you’re experiencing.
If you want to learn more you can google “photography usage rights” or “photography license agreement” and deep dive the untold number of blog posts about it. You can check out this blog post for a crash course if you need good starting point.
If books are more your fancy there’s Nancy Wolff’s The Professional Photographer’s Legal Handbook and the American Society of Media Photographer’s Professional Business Practices in Photography; both are pretty old but a very easy to understand. John Harrington’s Best Business Practices for Photographers also goes into detail and is more recent, but very broad in what it covers. Technically, there’s the demo for fotobiz X which will let you make a sample contract from their templates.
I’m sure you’ll find more resources but these books were my go-tos when I was working as a photographer. If you feel like socializing you check out your local APA (American Photographic Artists) or ASMP (American Society of Photographic Artists) chapters. Not sure if membership is still a requirement for attending events but it doesn’t hurt to ask.
They do have intelligence, but that intelligence is deliberately underfunded to prevent this very situation. It’s impossible to navigate the mountains of paperwork and legal loopholes the ultra-wealthy use with so few hands. That’s why poorer filers get audited more often: less leg work, easier wins, at the expense of real revenue and justice against tax evaders.
The odd phrasing as its likely the original audio from that take, as redubbing would be saved for confirmed scenes.
That’s how I understood it as well. Feels like most mandates have nothing to do with company culture and more to do with commercial property expenses/investments.
This isn’t surprising, a user found out how to abuse the API to progress without doing lessons by just submitting the expected parameters last year. If they followed through on reporting to Duo then they’ve had plenty of time to address it. Seems like the mod also found out how vulnerable Duo was and took it to it’s natural conclusion.
The guitar case has the neck support he needs when you’re not strumming his belly.