826
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
826 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
60130 readers
2751 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
is anyone else excited to see poisoned AI artwork? This might be the element that makes it weird enough.
Also, re: the guy lol'ing that someone says this is illegal - it might be. is it wrong? absolutely not. does the woefully broad computer fraud and abuse act contain language that this might violate? it depends, the CFAA has two requirements for something to be in violation of it.
the act in question affects a government computer, a financial institution's computer, OR a computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication" (that last one is the biggie because it means that almost 100% of internet activity falls under its auspices)
the act "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;" (with 'protected computer' being defined in 1)
Quotes are from the law directly, as quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
the poisoned artwork is information created with the intent of causing it to be transmitted to computers across state or international borders and damaging those computers. Using this technique to protect what's yours might be a felony in the US, and because it would be considered intentionally damaging a protected computer by the knowing transmission of information designed to cause damage, you could face up to 10 years in prison for it. Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft, they don't even have to give you some of the money they use your art to make, but if you try to stop them you go to prison for a decade.
The CFAA is the same law that Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz was prosecuted under. His crime was downloading things from JSTOR that he had a right to download as an account holder, but more quickly than they felt he should have. He was charged with 13 felonies and faced 50 years and over a million dollars in fines alongside a lifetime ban from ever using an internet connected computer again when he died by suicide. The charges were then dropped.
It's not damaging a computer, it's poisoning the models ai uses to create the images. The program will work just fine, and as expected given the model that it has, the difference is the model might not be accurate. It's like saying you're breaking a screen if you're now looking at a low res version of an image
the models are worth money and are damaged. that's how the law will see it.
My big thing here is if there's no contract, where is the onus for having correct models? Yah, the models are worth money, but is it the artist or softwares responsible for those correct models? I'd say most people who understand how software works would say software, unless they were corporate shills. Make better software, or pay the artists, the reaction shouldn't be "artists are fooling me, they should pay"
Taking it to an extreme. Say somehow they had this same software back in the 90s, could the generative software sue because all the images were in 256 colors? From your perspective, yes, cause it was messing up their models that are built for many more colors
"Damage to a computer" is legal logorrhoea, possible interpretations range from not even crashing a program to STUXNET, completely under-defined so it's up to the courts to give it meaning. I'm not at all acquainted with US precedent but I very much doubt they'll put the boundary at the very extreme of the space of interpretation, which "causes a program to expose a bug in itself without further affecting functioning in any way" indeed is.
Learning from an image, studying it, is absolutely not theft. Otherwise I shall sue you for reading this comment of mine.
The model is the thing of value that is damaged.
But making works derivative from someone else's copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.
So any art done in a style of another artist is theft? Of course not. Learning from looking at others is what all of us do. It’s far more complicated than you’re making it sound.
IMO, If the derivative that the model makes is too close to someone else’s, the person distributing such work would be at fault. Not the model itself.
But again, it’s very nuanced. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.
Of course not, but what does this have to do with generative models? Deep learning has as much to do with learning as democratic people's north Korea does with democracy.
It does not get damaged, it stays as it is. Also it's a bunch of floats, not a computer.
"Derivative work" doesn't mean "inspired by". For a work to be derivative it needs to include major copyrightable elements of the original work(s). Things such as style aren't even copyrightable. Character design is, but then you should wonder whether you actually want to enforce that in non-commercial settings like fanart, even commissioned fanart, if e.g. Marvel doesn't care as long as you're not making movies or actual comics. They gain nothing from there not being, say, a Deadpool version of the Drake meme.
And this is why we don't obey the law.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law (18 U. S. C. § 1030), which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^