News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can proceed. Parent comment

Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by keonix on Saturday December 09, 2023 @01:24AM (#38579191)
If I regurgiate something I read in copyrighted book without proper license that also would be theft, no distinction there.

I'm not distributing my brain, at least same (but probably more restrictive) should apply to models - training is okay, but using and distributing should be limited by copyright

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by broken-kebab on Saturday December 09, 2023 @01:35AM (#38579249)
Explaining anything publicly based on my understanding I got reading books would be illegal following this logic. I'm not sure this is how it works.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by visarga on Saturday December 09, 2023 @01:48AM (#38579325)
They want to muddle the distinction between ideas and expression. You can't copyright ideas. Everyone is entitled to copy ideas.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by keonix on Saturday December 09, 2023 @03:26AM (#38579877)
It would not be illegal based on fair use (though you have to be careful there also), but if you try to regurgiate large portions of the book then it would be. And we do know that models regurgiate training material verbatim (Copilot)
[ Parent | on HN ]