this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
204 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

58092 readers
2941 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

At firstglance, if AI art is copyleft, there's no reason to buy/license the original from anyone; just include their stuff in the model and tweak the prompts until it's close enough. Voila, free art! As long as tweaking the model is cheaper than buying art, the AI industry wins.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's not that there'd be no reason to buy/license it for commercial use, it's that it would be impossible to do so. Downstream users simply couldn't legally use it at all -- no matter how much or little they wanted to pay -- unless they were willing to release their work as copyleft, too.

In other words, making* AI output copyleft maximizes freedom, but it's hardly "free." And that impossibly-high cost to those who would leech is why it would be a good thing.

(* Or rather, affirming it as such in court, since it's already rightfully copyleft by virtue of having already used copyleft input. It wouldn't be a change in status, but rather a recognition of what the status always was.)

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I feel this assumes two things.

  1. AI art would be used in products that can be copyrighted in the first place, and not things like marketing/political campaigns or decor.

  2. depending on the exact license agreement, you could use copylefted things in commercial products. The actual art can be free to reuse/share, but the rest of product may not be; things like illustrations in a book say (an analogy I drew up based on how Android works, commercial products based on a copylefted component).