The trained model is a work derived from masses of copywrite material. Distribution of that model is infringement, same as distributing copies of movies. Public access to that model is infringement, just as a public screening of a movie is.
People keep thinking it’s “the picture the AI drew” that’s the issue. They’re wrong. It’s the “AI” itself.
What do you think the trained model is other than a derived work?
Promotional images are still under copyright.
AI is creating an image based on someone else’s property. The difference is it’s owned by a corporation.
This isn’t the issue. The copyright infringement is the creation of the model using the copywrite work as training data.
All NYT is doing is demonstrating that the model must have been created using copywrite works, and hence infringement has taken place. They are not stating that the model is committing an infringement itself.
They are showing that the author of the tool has comitted massive copyright infringement in the process construction of the tool.
…unless they licensed all the copyright works they trained the model on. (Hint: they didn’t, and we know they didn’t because the copyright holders haven’t licensed their work for that purpose. )
It doesn’t matter if a company charges or not for anything. It’s not a factor in copyright law.
Copyleft is not public domain, and requires copyright law to function.
The article uses Midjourney. Nobody is tuning it.
If fair use is cut down…
It’s not a case of cutting down fair use. It’s a case 9f enforcing current fair use limits.
The choices here are to respect copyright or destroy it. Having and AI exception is nonsense.
"I’m not illegally downloading the latest blockbuster/ best seller / chart topping album. I’m scraping the internet for training data for my AI. It just so happens I need to filter the data by hand before it can injest it. I keep looking for suitable data, but haven’t identified any yet. "
There’s plenty of non copyright material out there to do research on. It won’t make for useful AI products, but they can start licensing for that.
…and then return it to his grieving wife?
It’s not hard. He’s saying that this study makes no claims about effectiveness, but people are so programmed with the catchphrase “safe and effective” that they conflate the two.
I’ve noted over the past few years, how any company that invests in R&D rather than pays dividends is labelled as “loss making” by the press.
No, because I used the web before web search. It’s a convenient thing. Not a necessary thing.
i.e. where it all began
69 MJ is 19.17 kWh. About 86p of electricity at today’s wholesale price in the UK (£45/MWh: today is fairly average).
The research they are doing is great, but there’s so much engineering to be done to turn fusion into something practical; something capable of running streams of pulses, not just single ones.
This was the last experiment for this reactor running it outside of design limits.