Scam Faultman has a face that looks like it’d be a pillowy soft paradise for any brave fist that lands upon it at high speed.
Japan has some of the worst copyright and fair use laws in the world.
Satire is often times considered copy right infringing.
I wouldn’t say they’re worse. I’d say they’re confusing as hell.
For example: fan manga are absolutely okay.
Fan manga and other doujin works usually depends on the original copyright holder for enforcement.
Some are pretty open for any fanworks being commercialized as long it’s limited and case by case basis. For example, Love Live franchise allows doujin manga and other doujinshi works, but not with fanmerch. Serial Experiments Lain generally allows various stuff, but not R18 content. Some others like Yakitate Japan mangaka just happy seing his works have so many adult doujin manga, and even lining up on Comiket buying them.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What’s with the dumb takes at the top of this post?
Come on Japan, what’s a bit of culture for AGI/ASI! Don’t you want to save the planet? /$
This is obviously sarcasm, OpenAI just wants more money, namely the exact OPPOSITE of what it was founded for.
Automated garbage internet
Everyone here is either on the side of hating big AI companies or hating IP law. I proudly hate both.
It’s a “heads-I-win / tails-you-lose” system when business can violently extract the value of labor coming and going.
Either the state protects owners of IP (inevitably a business entity looking to collect rents on its use) or it facilitates robbing the original artist (inevitably a talented individual/team that lacks the money for a lengthy legal fight). The legal system never seems to break in favor of the people themselves. It can only exist as a gradient to move wealth from the sweet of one’s brow to the pocket of one’s bosses.
We need two things:
- much shorter copyright and patent durations, like 14 and 5 years respectively (14 comes from OG copyright duration)
- stronger enforcement of copyright to protect creators from AI stealing their work
They should happen in that order, and ideally copyright would only be awarded to individuals (or perhaps specifically named lists of individuals, with some reasonable cap), not corporations. The current system is absolutely bonkers.
Making it so corporations cannot directly own some random valuable thing?
It’s a nice thing to think about, but it has 0% chance of happening in our current system.
But remember piracy is legal for the big AI companies.
$1.5b judgement against Anthropic for it (not paid yet of course, gotta see how it plays from here)
This is the way
2 wrongs don’t make a right, I did enjoy
- Theft! A History of Music https://web.law.duke.edu/musiccomic/
- Tales from the Public Domain: BOUND BY LAW? https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/
on the topic.
That’s rich coming from a country with no proper copyright laws & a copyright monster by the name Nintendo
Japan’s copyright law is very similar to the US, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
You’re replying to a pizza cutter.
All edge and no point.
Oooooo that’s a really good insult
Japan’s copyright law is very similar to the US
That’s exactly what he’s referring to lol
which is why their laws aren’t proper copyright laws, yes
That both are copyright monsters which should be ignored as much as possible until they die out.
Disney is even worse than Nintendo.
Removed by mod
What the actual fuck is this comment?
Anti Japan comment, of course, because they don’t like foreigners anymore
It’s the 1980s all over again. Americans conveniently rediscovering how much they hate Japan, the moment they see the country as a global rival rather than a source of cheap labor.
I wasn’t born in that fourth world wasteland that has no workers right.
fourth world
I’m going to regret asking, but… what do you think the fourth world is? And, what did you think the first three were?
I guess first would be Europe, second would be the old USSR countries, third would be Africa and central/south america and fourth would be the US
Buddy, they never liked foreigners to begin with. That’s like… Their whole thing.
That doesn’t align with the modern globalism tendencies.
Perhaps we should colonize them and replace them with new people who fit the narrative better.
That’ll teach them to be more considerate of foreigners. Well, those that survive, at least.
booo… pick a psychosis and stick with it
I can’t. I must pick them all
They don’t like foreigners, so let’s wish they were conquered by colonials, because that worked out so well for every other country conquered by colonials.
I mean, look at India. The Modi government will crawl over broken glass to appease their colonial oppressors. Or, at least, they’ll find some of their lowest cast neighbors to do the crawling for them.
But if they got replaced by the colonizers, we wouldn’t have xenophobic japanese people anymore.
You’re advocating for the replacement of an entire ethnic group. You know what that’s called, right?
I hope for your sake that you’re being ironic.
The African invaders did that with our denisovan and neanderthal ancestors. We would just be doing the same
The African invaders
I feel like I’m talking to a guy who was deeply offended by the movie Django Unchained.
“African invaders”, I see you also fail at anthropology. Probably for idealogical reasons, right?
Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying something so monumentally stupid and uneducated.
Based on what I saw while lurking around the site formerly known as Twitter, while some Japanese creatives are totally hostile to AI with their traditional and digital artwork being poached for “training”, others are jumping into Sora to enliven their waifu artwork, mostly posed 3D models or from video games.
Removed by mod
You can’t deadname a company.
And as long as that dumb fascist does it to his daughter, even more reason to keep doing it.
I will never let marketing win.
No. I’m just not giving that nazi the satisfaction of using that name that built the site. Why would you?
Wow, Elon himself on Lemmy!
Not even close. I just refuse to call that racist fueled rubbish heap Twitter.
Fair point. But I can also see why people don’t want to call it by the name the current owner wants you to use.
The stubbornness of calling it Twitter is really silly. Imagine insisting Edge is AcTuAlLy Internet Explorer, same energy.
It’s called x now, you access it by going to c.com. it’s stupid, but you need to face it and accept that Twitter and what Twitter used to be is gone.
Stop using the Nazi platform, period. This refusal to let go of Twitter and still giving Elon money and influence by continuing to use his platform while insisting you’re making some sort of statement by making fun of him and calling it Twitter is… Silly. What’s the end game?
Twitter is dead. Let it go.
it’s called x now, you access it by going to c.com
I know this is likely just a typo but it made me lol
You need a better example. Edge was specifically not Internet Explorer. For quite a while, both existed. They were separate programs. Also going to twitter.com still takes you to where you wanna go lol, it just redirects.
I guess you will call Nike Blue Ribbon Sports because they still have blueribbonsports.com, and certainly all the cool kids still say WWF because WWE is stupid, and I remember when everyone refused to call ebay anything but AuctionWeb, and don’t forget how everyone refused to accept that Research In Motion became BlackBerry. Almost forgot how nobody called Apple Music anything but Beats Music, and the SyFy channel will always be SciFi, and Paramount+ is universally rejected as a replacement for CBS All Access… It’s not hard to come up with examples, this happens all the time… lol
It’s a brand, and it changed. It’ll never be Twitter again, it’s the Nazi platform X now, and keeping ownership of the Twitter.com domain name isn’t exactly proof Twitter is still Twitter, so much has been changed about it beyond content moderation and Nazi propaganda distribution, from content access to monetization.
I personally avoid using the Nazi platform, but feel free to continue supporting it while “making fun” of its name change like that’s consequential at all.
Don’t engage with the ideas, downvote and run away. Your precious Twitter needs you to “stand up” to Elon by continuing to use his platform.
Pump the brakes. Never said I support using Twitter. I was just saying you don’t have to “go to x.com” to get there. Which is an argument you used.
That’s the primary domain… Twitter.com forwards to it, you do have to go to x.com, even if your browser is making that process mostly transparent for you.
Do you disagree that it’s not called Twitter anymore? Do you disagree that calling people stupid for calling it x is stupid?
The guy heiled Hitler twice on live tv and people are still using his platform because “it’s still Twitter”… It’s dumb.
Keep sucking fascist dick.
I know people who are still calling Snickers bars Marathons. Telling people to let it go isn’t going to do you any good, either.
are you ragebaiting or do you really care that we deadname twitter? lmao
nice paragraphs.
They seem to equate people using the name Twitter with ignoring the problems with it post Musk buyout. Which isn’t the case.
I think you’re mistaken. Your URL doesn’t even go anywhere. Pretty sure it’s still Twitter?
I am cool with everything stuffed into AI and freely distributed, whatever the form. Bluntly, I think copyright sucks, and want it gone. Nintendo shouldn’t be able to patent game mechanics, and I would like to see more mashups of things.
Nintendo shouldn’t be able to patent game mechanics
Those are patents, not copyrights. There are a bunch of different forms of intellectual property. Off the top of my head:
-
Copyright
-
Trademark
-
Patent
-
Moral (not very substantial in the US, but more-meaningful in France)
IMO, the way it should be is that concepts and art should be free to be used by anyone. However, specific incarnations made someone can’t be copied. For example, Nintendo can make a Pokemon game, as can Sega with the same characters. Naturally, Nintendo can make a Shin Megami Mario game.
The important thing is that the company or people behind an incarnation is distinctly labelled, so that people can’t confuse who made what. In this way, variants of a media can fulfill niches that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. Say, for example, a WoodRocket “Jessie Does James” hentai anime.
It should fall under more general laws against fraud. The main harm in copyright violation is copying something and claiming to be the original author, thereby stealing credit for it. If a reasonable person would mistake your product as coming from the original source, then you have committed fraud and should be held liable for damages.
However, if you make a spinoff and it’s obviously distinct such that a reasonable person wouldn’t mistake your work as coming from the original creator, that should be protected.
So yeah, if I want to make a Pokemon game and it is very distinct from anything The Pokemon Company has worked on (either directly or indirectly), then it should be totally fine. The only copyright violation is if I directly copy any artwork, but if I produce my own renditions, I should be in the clear.
Once you start studying non capitalist propaganda, the idea of “intellectual property” becomes transparently harmful. Copyrights don’t protect ideas, they protect the wealth of rich people.
Indeed. I’m not against copyrights owned by individuals. Corporations owning rights is downright dystopian.
So, we can use Donald Duck, but not Harry Potter? I don’t quite understand why. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to write my own Harry Potter books? (not that I would).
I’m not even sure that IP being owned by non-natural persons is the problem, for example I could see a coop collectively owning copyrights/patents relevant to their work. The problem is the frankly ridiculous amount of time granted for copyrights and obvious methods being patented.
Change both of those and you keep the benefit of innovative individuals/small groups having legal protection from large corporations muscling in and stealing their work and get rid of most of the damage done by the current system.
I have, in the past, kind of wished that settings and characters could not be copyrighted. I realize that there’s work that goes into creating each, but I think that we could still live in a world where those weren’t protected and interesting stuff still gets created. If that were to happen, then I agree, it’d be necessary to make it very clear who created what, since the setting and characters alone wouldn’t uniquely identify the source.
Like, there are things like Greek mythology or the Robin Hood collection of stories, very important works of art from our past, that were created by many different unaffiliated people. They just couldn’t be created today with our modern stories, because the settings and characters would be copyrighted and most rightsholders don’t just offer a blanket grant of rights to use them.
That’s actually one unusual and notable thing H.P. Lovecraft did — if you’ve ever seen stuff in the Cthulhu Mythos, that’s him. He encouraged anyone who wanted to do so to create stuff using his universe. One reason why we have that kind of collection of Lovecraftian stuff.
But you can’t do that with, say, Star Wars or a lot of other beloved settings.
The Touhou franchise strikes me as the modern Lovecraft. People are creating fangames, and go on to make them into commercial products. Around the 22nd or thereabout, “Shrine Maiden Wars” will be released, which is a take on the Super Robot Wars formula, but with the Touhou cast. It is an incredibly vibrant ecosystem of fanworks, where most people get to have fun AND profit.
Touhou Luna Nights Is such a Fun Game! It was the first Touhou Game I played because I’m don’t like Bullet Hell’s. If someone reads this and is into Metroidvanias, give it a shot!
I probably will get it when Turkey Day rolls around. Anyhow, counter-suggestion: Check out La-Mulana if you like puzzles with your Metroidvania. They are extremely long and difficult games, but is worth your time if you got the lateral thinking to puzzle out the riddles and enjoy things like King’s Quest.
-
Ah, a man of culture - DBZ Team Training is a classic. I also hear good things about Super Mariomon, though I haven’t tried it yet myself.
I agree that I should be able to use whatever you make and sell it for money without crediting you because I’m a human just like you. We’re basically related so whatever you make is also mine because we’re pretty try much the same person.
I will support the elimination of copyright. But, as long as copyright exists, I will reject and resist AI.
That said, there are a number of other reasons I think AI sucks, it’s not limited to copyright.
i support elimination of IP copyright for medications, lessen the time for other forms of IP, like movie/show franchises.
I don’t think copyright is currently serving it’s purpose “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. And it should be eliminated anywhere it is not doing that.
Closest to my pocketbook is software (I’m a programmer), and I think we’d almost certainly be better off without copyright of any kind on software. It would mean exercise of some of our freedom around software would have to be implemented via reverse engineering, but it would make that route much more available / less risky for software that is current not Free Software. But, maybe I’m extra jaded because software is almost always done as “work-for-hire” so the author doesn’t actually hold the copyright, the Capitalist employer does.
I support the elimination of copyright in it’s current form
The way it was initially was fine IMO: 14 years, with an option to renew it at the end of those 14 years. ONCE.
Now in terms of patenting medications, if it was partially paid for with public money it’s the public’s patent. In other words it’s open for everyone. Made a new medication but took a government grant to help fund it? It’s public when it comes out, enjoy a nice hearty reward check for your efforts.
So, the “don’t use copyrighted data in a training corpus” crowd probably isn’t going to win the IP argument. And I would be quite surprised if IP law changes to accommodate them.
However, the “don’t generate and distribute infringing material” is a whole different story. IP holders are on pretty solid ground there. One thing that I am very certain that IP law is not going to permit is just passing copyrighted data into a model and then generating and distributing material that would otherwise be infringing. I understand that anime rightsholders often have something of a tradition of sometimes letting fan-created material slide, but if generative AI massively reduces the bar to creating content, I suspect that that is likely to change.
Right now, you have generative AI companies saying — maybe legally plausibly — that they aren’t the liable ones if a user generates infringing material with their model.
And while you can maybe go after someone who is outright generating and selling material that is infringing, something doesn’t have to be commercially sold to be infringing. Like, if LucasArts wants to block for-fun fan art of Luke and Leia and Han, they can do that.
One issue is attribution. Like, generative AI companies are not lying when they say that there isn’t a great way to just “reverse” what training corpus data contributed more to an output.
However, I am also very confident that it is very possible to do better than they do today. From a purely black-box standpoint, one possibility would be, for example, to use TinEye-style fuzzy hashing of images and then try to reverse an image, probably with a fuzzier hash than TinEye uses, to warn a user that they might be generating an image that would be derivative. That won’t solve all cases, especially if you do 3d vision and generative AI producing models (though then you could also maybe do computer vision and a TinEye-equivalent for 3D models).
Another complicating factor is that copyright only restricts distribution of derivative works. I can make my own, personal art of Leia all I want. What I can’t do is go distribute it. I think — though I don’t absolutely know what case law is like for this, especially internationally — that generating images on hardware at OpenAI or whatever and then having them move to me doesn’t count as distribution. Otherwise, software-as-a-service in general, stuff like Office 365, would have major restrictions on working with IP that locally-running software would not. Point is that I expect that it should be perfectly legal for me to go to an image generator and generate material as long as I do not subsequently redistribute it, even if it would be infringing had I done so. And the AI company involved has no way of knowing what I’m doing with the material that I’m generating. If they block me from making material with Leia, that’s an excessively-broad restriction.
But IP holders are going to want to have a practical route to either be able to go after the generative AI company producing the material that gets distributed, or the users generating infringing material and then distributing it. AI companies are probably going to say that it’s the users, and that’s probably correct. Problem is from a rightsholder standpoint, yeah, they could go after the users before, but if it’s a lot cheaper and easier to create the material now, that presents them with practical problems. If any Tom, Dick, and Harry can go out and generate material, they’ve got a lot more moles to whack in their whack-a-mole game.
And in that vein, an issue that I haven’t seen come up is what happens if generative AI companies start permitting deterministic generation of content – that is, where if I plug in the same inputs, I get the same outputs. Maybe they already do; I don’t know, run my generative AI stuff locally. But supposing you have a scenario like this:
-
I make a game called “Generic RPG”, which I sell.
-
I distribute — or sell — DLC for this game. This uses a remote, generative AI service to generate art for the game using a set of prompts sold as part of the DLC for that game. No art is distributed as part of the game. Let’s say I call that “Adventures A Long Time Ago In A Universe Far, Far Away” or something that doesn’t directly run afoul of LucasArts, creates enough distance. And let’s set aside trademark concerns, for the sake of discussion. And lets say that the prompts are not, themselves infringing on copyright (though I could imagine them doing so, let’s say that they’re sufficiently distant to avoid being derivative works).
-
Every user buys the DLC, and then on their computer, reconstitutes the images for the game. At least if done purely-locally, this should be legal under case law — the GPL specifically depends on the fact that one can combine material locally to produce a derivative work as long as one does not then distribute it. Mods to (copyrighted) games can just distribute the deltas, producing a derivative work when the mod is applied, and that’s definitely legal.
-
One winds up with someone selling and distributing what is effectively a “Star Wars” game.
Now, maybe training the model on images of Star Wars content so that it knows what Star Wars looks like isn’t, as a single step, creating an infringing work. Maybe distributing the model that knows about Star Wars isn’t infringement. Maybe the prompts being distributed designed to run against that model are not infringing. Maybe reconstituting the apparently-Star-Wars images in a deterministic fashion using SaaS to hardware that can run the model is not infringing. But if the net effect is equivalent to distributing an infringing work, my suspicion is that courts are going to be willing to create some kind of legal doctrine that restricts it, if they haven’t already.
Now, this situation is kind of contrived, but I expect that people will do it, sooner or later, absent legal restrictions.
I fear that this does not cleanly apply to Japan because of their somewhat uniquely active doujinshi (fan work) culture. To give an idea of how big a deal doujinshi are, the largest western convention San Diego Comic Con only draws around 130,000 attendants. The largest Doujinshi convention Comiket drew 750,000 attendants before COVID. These works are explicitly distributed and redistributed for commercial profit (though admittedly usually not at any profitable scale).
Japan copyright law has explicit exceptions for doujinshi, having recognised the immense value to the industry. So many successful artists started by creating and selling doujinshi, which are usually explicitly derivative works of IP.
Doujinshi - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doujinshi
This is a distressingly unusually solid analysis for lemmy. I agree with one exception–writing to memory absolutely counts as a distribution. Accordingly, if a generative model output an infringing work, it for sure could create liability for infringement. I think this will ultimately work similarly to music copyright where conscious/explicitly intentional copying is not itself the threshold test, but rather degree of similarity. And if you have prompts that specifically target towards infringement, you’re going to get some sort of contributory infringement structure. I think there is also potentially useful case law to look at in terms of infringement arising out of work-for-hire situations, where the contractor may not have infringed intentionally but the supervisor knew and intended their instructions to produce an effectively infringing work. That is, if there is any case law on this pretty narrow fact pattern.
It sounds like it would be an analogue issue that is already similarly solved in other respects.
For example, its not only illegal for someone to make and sell known illegal drugs, but its additionally illegal to make or sell anything that is not the specifically illegal drug but is analogous to it in terms of effect (and especially facets of chemical structure)
So any process that produces an end result analogous to copyright infringement would be viewed as copyright infringement, even if it skirts the existing laws on a technical basis, is probably what the prevailing approach will be
For example, its not only illegal for someone to make and sell known illegal drugs, but its additionally illegal to make or sell anything that is not the specifically illegal drug but is analogous to it in terms of effect (and especially facets of chemical structure)
Hmm. I’m not familiar with that as a legal doctrine.
kagis
At least in the US — and this may not be the case everywhere — it sounds like there’s a law that produces this, rather than a doctrine. So I don’t think that there’s a general legal doctrine that would automatically apply here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
The Federal Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, is a section of the United States Controlled Substances Act passed in 1986 which allows any chemical “substantially similar” to a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II to be treated as if it were listed in Schedule I, but only if intended for human consumption. These similar substances are often called designer drugs. The law’s broad reach has been used to successfully prosecute possession of chemicals openly sold as dietary supplements and naturally contained in foods (e.g., the possession of phenethylamine, a compound found in chocolate, has been successfully prosecuted based on its “substantial similarity” to the controlled substance methamphetamine).[1] The law’s constitutionality has been questioned by now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch[2] on the basis of Vagueness doctrine.
But I guess that it might be possible to pass a similar such law for copyright, though.
However, the “don’t generate and distribute infringing material” is a whole different story. IP holders are on pretty solid ground there.
Is any of it infringing? Explain the knock-off music & art in popular media when they don’t want to pay royalty fees for the authentic article. Explain knock-off brands. Cheap imitations to sidestep copyright restrictions have been around long before generative AI, yet businesses aren’t getting sued: they apparently understand legal standards enough to safely imitate. Why is shoddy imitation for distribution okay when human-generated yet not when AI-generated?
I don’t think your understanding of copyright infringement is solid.
Even supposing someone manages to generate work whose distribution infringes copyright, wouldn’t legality follow the same model as a human requesting a commercial (human-based) service to generate that work?
-
OpenAI is copyright infringement.
I’m amazed that these shady chatbot apps aren’t getting sued to death. I see ads all the time for Simpsons, Family Guy, Incredibles characters and I’m like “Disney is going to murder you.”
Why are you seeing ads?
On mobile most of the time.
Disney bought into a long history of Fox animated properties being lax in infringement enforcement online.
But this is a whole different level. That’s where I agree with you.
They’ll wait until the bubble bursts (or OpenAI shows signs of weakness) and then they’ll eat it alive.
It’s not profitable to go after them when the government is tweeting out Pokémon ICE commercials and the president is making deepfakes of himself.
NVIDIA will want thier investment back at some point too. oracle is going to be left holding the bag on all the useless datacenters they built.
And the other government with large contributors is China and intellectual property rights have never been strong there. Walk around a tech startup in China and you’ll see plenty of posters they’ve made with their products and with the faces of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs there as if they’re endorsing or part of the product
they use westerners, even hiring white people to be the face of thier company, its to "legitimize thier shady companies its very common. they make the westerners go to events and pretend like they own it, but not do anything for the companies internal workings. thats why alot of products on amazon that are from china uses white people in thier ads.
And the other government with large contributors is China and intellectual property rights have never been strong there. Walk around a startup and you’ll see plenty of posters they’re made with their products and with the faces of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs there as if they’re endorsing or part of the product
They will just make deal with OpenAI that benefit both sides while all the small players get crushed. Same as with all types of media…
That’s their whole business model
Didn’t Japan rule that AI was fine to infringe copyright to train? Why are they complaining now?
The argument for training an AI on copyright materials is different than the argument for allowing it to generate and distribute copyright infringing materials.
Japan didn’t think the face eating leopards would eat their face.
I guess that cost a few dinners and holidays, maybe even some fancy tech stuff. But probably took them to some conference, where they showcased “what AI will be capable in just a few years, only if they could train it on copyrighted material”.
its okay if they did it, but not okay if a outsider does it.-japan
