andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pmEntry tags:
- advertising,
- ai,
- amazon,
- copyright,
- links,
- neilgaiman,
- tv
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2023-09-23 12:00 pm
no subject
In code, this seems to be the primary concern. An AI coding assistant is trained on a large body of code, and its output is at least in some sense a derived work of all of that code. Is it a derived work for copyright and licensing purposes? Lots of people don't want to risk it. So companies will adopt policies of telling their developers never to use AI coding assistants – meaning both "don't put their output into our products" (with risk of, e.g., GPL contamination) and "don't expose our proprietary code to systems that will feed it into the AI training set" (with even more obvious risks).
But apparently for art purposes this isn't even in the dialogue, and the question is just: is this image copyright to the AI artist, or is it not copyright at all? The third option of it being (at least in part) copyright to someone else isn't even mentioned.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)