Keyboard shortcuts are available for common actions and site navigation.
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
What I wonder. - The images are "copyright free". What were the training images? Were they copyrighted? - What are the implications if you take someone else's photo, feed it into a neural network, and then the neural network spits back out a photo of them? Is copyright laundered?https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1174715057541808130 …
Also "copyright free with attribution" is not… really a thing. There are words for different open licenses and that is not one of them. This isn't particularly Mr. Baio's fault— the site is similarly confusing about the license terms. I don't see a license anywhere on that page.
I… think you have to give them your email before they'll tell you what the distribution license is?? Um
From the Product Hunt discussion: "We've run a photo lab for the last 3 years. We shot all the photos that we use. All of them are model-released." Absolutely no mention of an actual license, just that it's "free to use" with attribution.https://www.producthunt.com/posts/100-000-faces …
It's interesting you have to go off-site to get that kind of information
When I was studying art I was doing “appropriation” by reproducing fellow student’s work. There is a precedent for transforming another artist’s work (Goya’s etchings by the Chapman Brothers), and also lawsuits in other situations. It’s an interesting rabbit hole.
Basically copyright is an incoherent, long-term nonviable concept, and we're potentially seeing a kind of breach caused by AI doing things we've exactly seen before and then saying "But it's different— because it's AI!"
oh i dont like this phrasing at allpic.twitter.com/VkGaHP8yeK
My guess (IANAL) is that if a source image was copyrighted and something was recognizable in the resulting image it could be taken to court and the user would have to prove that the usage was transformative or fell into one of the other categories of fair use / fair dealing.
Basically just because a computer made the final image doesn't wash it of traditional copywrite law any more then if I created the same image using the source image and photoshop.
I mean what is plagiarism really except running something through a person's neural network
so, if i remember correctly, think @levendowski is the scholar i've most recently read on this?
If you're curious about using copyrighted works to train AI systems, I have a paper you might be interested in! It's this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024938 ….
I've wondered that myself. Can I put a bunch of Hollywood soundtracks through a neural network and produce a new soundtrack copyright free?
if you edited the photo in Photoshop in a way that was transformative the original copyright wouldn't apply so I don't see why using a neural net would be different
imagine if you took a dozen photos of people, made a collage out of pieces of those photos to make a new person, and smoothed over the seams so it looked real. you'd have a very strong fair-use defense if you got sued by the rights holder of one of the photos
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
