Skip to main content

lemmy - Link to source

Disney says Google AI infringes copyright “on a massive scale”

Disney says Google AI infringes copyright “on a massive scale”

Disney demands that Google immediately block its copyrighted content from appearing in AI outputs.
Ryan Whitwam (Ars Technica)
#technology
in reply to along_the_road

BougieBirdie
piefed - Link to source
BougieBirdie
• •

Disney just announced yesterday that they were investing a billion dollars into OpenAI. I have a hard time believing any AI company is respecting copyright because infringement is their business model. This sort of reads like "the competition's product is worse than ours."

It’s hard to know who to root for in a battle between giant AI firms and equally giant entertainment companies.


You're allowed to root for nobody. Sometimes everyone sucks.

in reply to BougieBirdie

SCmSTR
lemmy - Link to source
SCmSTR
• •

Wait a minute, maybe Disney's on to something..

Yeah, sure, they always take what isn't theirs to begin with, copyright it, and sue the bejesus off of anybody that crosses them...

But what if this backfires, and Disney brings a lawyer to a lawyer fight and causes a wave of actual legal discovery, here? Like a weird accidental poison pill for the AI industry.

LET ME HOPE

in reply to BougieBirdie

Midnitte
lemmy - Link to source
Midnitte
• •
Or just looking to make that licensing deal woth Google much more expensive than the OpenAI one
in reply to BougieBirdie

ɔiƚoxɘup
lemmy - Link to source
ɔiƚoxɘup
• •
I think you root for better antitrust and copyright protections, no?
Seems like that author was suffering from a failure of imagination.
in reply to ɔiƚoxɘup

winkerjadams
lemmy - Link to source
winkerjadams
• •
Maybe they are just being realistic given the current state of affairs. Our regulatory bodies should protect us. But they aren't.
in reply to along_the_road

db0
lemmy - Link to source
db0
• •
The inevitable follow-up of their OpenAI deal. Make a deal with a big GenAI company to get precedent for them licensing your copyrights, then go against everyone else who doesn't have such a deal. Now it's up to see who bribed Trump the most.
This entry was edited (1 day ago)
in reply to db0

Triumph
mbin - Link to source
Triumph
• •
I mean, that's exactly how those deals work.
in reply to db0

P03 Locke
lemmy - Link to source
P03 Locke
• •

Further proof that copyrights, like patents, only benefit the rich.

Also, AI-generated material still falls into the monkey selfie legal realm, so they are going to have a helluva time trying to copyright what comes out.


photograph series

Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)
in reply to P03 Locke

db0
lemmy - Link to source
db0
• •
I don't think they care about monetizing the output, but only about not being sued by the output and making other need to pay 1B to Disney before releasing models. Basically they run out of moat, and now they're creating an artifical moat.
This entry was edited (1 day ago)
in reply to along_the_road

InfiniteGlitch
lemmy - Link to source
InfiniteGlitch
• •
Poor Disney, we are sad for you /s. It sucks when the same things happens to you, right?
in reply to along_the_road

CerebralHawks
lemmy - Link to source
CerebralHawks
• •
I feel like once they open that door, they shouldn't get to decide who walks through it. Either they support AI using their characters, or they don't. I mean, they're certainly well within their rights to say none of them can do it, and I would support that if that was the way they went, but no, they said one company could use their IP to train its data. It's a rat race. They're all going to use it.
in reply to CerebralHawks

MountingSuspicion
lemmy - Link to source
MountingSuspicion
• •
Not to support Disney or IP/copyright laws here, but that's not really how that works. A musician can choose to not be on Spotify but be on Apple Music. A movie can be licensed to Netflix and not Hulu. A writer can publish in one paper and refuse to work with another. I think for how these things currently work, that is an important right that holders can claim. If I'm an artist and I want to make an AI generator from just my art, that should not give other companies license to use my are to train their AI.
in reply to MountingSuspicion

CerebralHawks
lemmy - Link to source
CerebralHawks
• •

Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying that now that it's out there, it's going to be on the others whether they like it or not. And they'd have a leg to stand on if they were against AI. But they're not. They're working with AI.

I really do get what you're saying, but what people need to realise about AI is, it doesn't care about rights. AI is trained off of thousands if not millions of works of art, mostly without permission, let alone compensation. This would be true of Disney IPs even if they weren't working with AI. But since they are, since they've opened that door, it removes the moral concern the rest of us have, coming from the point of view of the artists who were never given a choice, let alone a cheque. We can't feel sorry for Disney having other AI companies use their characters when it's used characters from independent artists without even asking.

⇧