AI used photographer’s photos for training, then slapped him with an invoice

Re:AI used photographer’s photos for training, then slapped ... by srslack on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @11:31AM (#35715336)

>The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually.

It was deemed "privacy violating" under specific privacy laws within those jurisdictions.

i.e. go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so. there's no substantial reproduction here, in the context of stable diffusion, until there is, and then yeah in that instance it's probably a copyright violation, like a substantial reproduction made by a human would be. but training itself, probably not. but yes, there have been no rulings on it in this context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AI used photographer’s photos for training, then slapped ... by triceratops on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @01:39PM (#35717381)

I'm aware privacy law applied to facial recognition, not copyright law. Nowhere did I imply that it was copyright law. I brought it up to illustrate that "activity + human" vs "activity + computer" can differ in legality for the same activity.

> go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so

I don't need to do anything. Let's see until one of these cases come to the courts. You're talking as though it's a foregone conclusion that they'll rule the way you think. I wouldn't be so sure myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]