Works made with paintbrushes and cameras - can be copyrighted. Images made with 3D software and photoshop - can be coprighted. AI imagery - can NOT be copyrighted. AI imagery mixed with OTHER DIGITAL MEDIA BY the user inside of photoshop - copyrightable? Say AI can not be copyrightable, then people will START LYING ABOUT IF THEY USED AI AT ALL IN THEIR IMAGES! YOU CAN NOT KNOW if an artist removes all the AI mistakes inside of PHOTOSHOP BY HAND!
Content creators should establish EULA's the same way software companies do. For instance, "Users cannot use any of the images on my website for the training of AI models. The user agrees to pay liquidated damages in the sum of $1 Million per image ingested by an AI system." So, when the AI system crawls your site to ingest your images into their model, they are in violation of your terms and conditions, and therefore owe you millions of dollars in liquidated damages. Now, obviously it's going to have to be litigated as to whether or not the AI crawler going to your site constitutes "agreeing" to your terms. I would argue that it does. If my pet cat goes onto your property and digs up your flowers, then I am liable for the damage my cat caused. I can't say "well, I don't know where my cat is going, and therefore I'm not liable for the damage." Likewise, the owners/operators of AI systems SHOULD be considered to be responsible for adhering to the terms and conditions of the sites and platforms that they crawl.
I don't care about who created what I just want my super advanced detailed A.I. images to look as great as possible. You don't deserve any royalties 😂😂😂😂😒.....
If any Image in pixels, or strings in a content, has a name or description and fall under a category, or under a classification than it fall under a copyright law. For the machine to learn it needs input a numbers of images and a known image at the output. The machine trained itself to learn one of the input images is similar to the output image and predicted both are from the same classification/ category and etc. But this chatGPT is not a machine learning technology. It is a search engine technology. Why the chatGPT name the input as prompt engineering. Search engine and prompt engine? You don't name these two as engine, do you? ChatGPT is the advanced version of Search engine, agree. This time the user can describe object in detail and ChatGPT search the desribed object on the internet for the user. If the user name to object Mickey mouse from a movie, the chatGPT output a Mickey mouse image in that movie to the user. That is ChatGPT provide a service to the user and the user has to determine the image is a copyright image. The onus is one the user how and where he want to use the image in or at. It look like the ChapGPT technology is good for use in restricted industry only. A 4 wheel car can only use on a proper designed road meant for cars only, for example. Oops, I hope I did not burst the bubble here. Thanks God human can keep their jobs and kick ChatGPT down the road like a trash can. The idea of a new technology can be use all all industries does not make sense, in this case.
Everything is developed from what has happened before. We are like computers and use our experience of life, what we see and hear to create ‘new’ from what’s gone before.
@@jaxkk1119 AI artist would say anything to get recognized as Super Real Artists during their fabulous appetizer with other AI artists😂😂 now we are computers as it say 😂😂
@@arcangeel4828 There is a non zero chance this is a bot shilling, this anthropomorphizing bullshit is flooding every corner of the internet talking about genAI, the number of people that both know how art works and also know how machine learning works is very small for the amount of "we're just shitty computers bro its the same" comments we are seeing.Keep in mind that the entire internet, this platform included (youtube content is being scrapped daily without anyone consent) is owned by people who stand to to benefit massively from getting away with stealing the entire cultural output of the human race. The spider caught everyone in its web, now its time to eat.
Ideas are not copyrightable, only the creative expression of them. What AIs are doing would not be infringement if a human did it, so it's difficult to see how a machine engaging in the same process could run afoul of copyright law. There may be other legal theories that could apply, but copyright seems like a dead end.
I’m gonna say some stuff that’s probably gonna make a lot of people mad but be honest I don’t care. Let me tell you something copyright way back in the day was necessary nowadays the fact that since the 1950s we have way over doubled our population we went from 3 billion people on the planet to now 8 billion and I believe copyright as we know it should go away and here is why I’m sick and tired of people saying that oh this is my original work it’s original. Let me tell you something there is no such thing as original work you cannot create anything, that is technically original unless you happen to see or witness something that no one else has ever seen before everybody copies other people because let me tell you something creativity is nothing more than taking no ideas and putting them together in a new form you can create a new form, but there’s no such thing as originality Because everything that has been created has been taken from many other factors and put together into something new, but it’s not original it’s just new, so when you go when you watch a superhero movie, you see some aliens or whatever if you break that character down to its base parts, you will find it’s related to something else that already Exists, so when people try to push that I created something original I’m gonna call them out on that because let me tell you something the Disney corporation in 1976 and in 1998 use their power money and influence to get the Supreme Court to change the copyright system twice Where it used to be you’d get 24 years and then after that 24 years you could sign up for another 24 years and then it would end up in the public domain but now because of what Disney has done goes from the lifetime of the artist or artists And 90 years after that, so a lot of stuff can take up to almost 200 years to end up in the public domain and stuff that already exist within the public domain that corporations have been used to make movies off of our TV shows they copyright those movies or TV shows, which then makes the works from the public domain, not usable for the average person without infringing on that companies copyright, even though they took their stuff from the public domain Let me tell you something copyright laws do not protect the individual. They protect the corporations because let me tell you something you can create something amazing but then if a corporation decides they want it they’re gonna get it and good luck fighting against a multi billion dollar corporation that has better lawyers than you will ever be able to get it it would cost you more money to fight them to just give it to them Copyright does nothing with patents do nothing more than hinder creativity or new inventions or new medicine because let me tell you something there was a company that eventually went under. That was actually creating a new drug that would almost cure Alzheimer’s. It’s not wasn’t an ultimate you know fix all, but they needed little bits of other peoples patterns, when it came to Medicine to create the drug, unfortunately even though they weren’t taking the person full idea, they were just taking little snippets. Those industries were not willing to give up those little bits because it was under their patent so basically because of these other industries, they prevented a drug that would solve a problem for people with Alzheimer’s, which is a horrible thing to have from being able to think normal again, and to be able to live their life, so copyright laws and patents do nothing more than hinder creativity, new ideas, new inventions, new medicines and much more at this point they just need to go away completely because let me tell you something somebody can be creating something whether it’s an invention whether it’s a medicine, whether it’s an piece of artwork, there’s always gonna be multiple other people working on similar ideas or something exactly the same as somebody else And I always use the telephone as an example. Yes, Graham was the one who ended up being known to creating the telephone. Unfortunately, there was at least almost a dozen other people that were working on a similar technology, and once he patent that idea, it prevented other people from creating their own version of the telephone, which would created better phones Because competition is what drives innovation and without competition you get a stagnant stuff let’s take music for example, it is almost impossible to not make something similar to somebody else because music only has so many notes you can work with so eventually you’re gonna create something that sounds like somebody else’s and people will copyright their music, and then sue those people to know, and if they even take a snippet of that entire song and use it for their own stuff And I do not like it should be free to make what they want because at the end of the day it’s down to what the consumer the person that wants to purchase it really wants because if somebody for instance and I’m gonna use Disney as an example makes Mickey Mouse years. Let’s say they create something that Disney never would’ve actually made, well Disney’s gonna come out for that person even though they made something that’s new and interesting to somebody else but the Disney corporation doesn’t like it well, here’s the thing if an industry exist or people are creating things and somebody else create something similar and that person doesn’t like it here’s what actually should happen. Those people should get together and create more of those items and use all those different ideas to create different ideas that work together, because back in the day when things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who and many other franchises existed, and the people that actually created them didn’t care that people made their own movies their own shows their own things based on that franchise because to them the moment they created something for everybody else that became theirs Because without those people supporting that idea, it would have the height so by attacking those people telling them how dare you do this you push them away and you slowly start losing money yes, there are some people that will step up and buy it anyway but you won’t get as much as you used to Ultimately if people find that certain technology or certain things coming into being are gonna affect them maybe they should create something better. Maybe they shouldn’t charge an arm and a leg for the things they want because for me I would love to get a lot of artwork done unfortunately it would cost me hundreds of dollars and I do not have that kind of money now. Somebody worked with me created the stuff I needed and I created stuff that they needed then we can work something out but people don’t wanna do that, so I’m gonna use something like AI to create something at least close to what I want for very little money because we work together as a species and help each other out. You can actually go further but people want to hold onto their stuff make it impossible for other people to come over similar stuff and that’s where things become an issue.
3:51. I believe this guy because he's basically supporting my ability to use A.I. Generators to create any type of art no matter what totally uncensored and no copyright BS... 😂😂😒.
The “AI creates just like human does” argument is so nonsense BS. First of all human creativity don’t just depends on their experience, their creativity also heavily depends on their natural instinct, which is partly shaped by each persons unique genetics and the physical structure of the brain, neither of which is shaped by learning from actual experiences, while an AI isn’t even a physical being, they are literally just the same neural networks running on the same model of hardware (such as a GPU), and that it cannot function out of the box without any input precisely because they are different from human being that have genetics which is all that is needed to develop a brain that does not need software to be “installed” in it to be able to work; AI does not have natural instinct, the GPU that runs the neural network are manufactured without the ability to function by itself, and the neural network itself cannot even exist without training data, while humans does not need “training data” to exist, all they needed is already in nature and in their genetics. Second of all, if they do agree that AI learns like human, then why does the human who are using it get all the rights from the work the AI created? People who are pro AI really want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to argue that AI learns just like humans in order to justify scraping copyrighted work, while still want to claim that they created those work so they can claim copy right for themselves. Utter hypocrisy.
that’s actually illegal in some places. You can’t sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night, because the light display is protected. Look it up. Also, some buildings have been removed from video games and movies over trademark infringement. One example is the Freedom Tower in the video game’s Spiderman and Spiderman 2
The legal system always needs idiots like Stephen Thaler to come forward. To think you, the human, could claim a copyright for “art” generated by a computer program… my gawd the profound ignorance of lazy humans can be astounding sometimes 😂🤣
The training data generative A.I. models use only reveal patterns. The models create original works by taking those patterns and applying them to novel prompts while inserting a degree of randomness that results in a work that is original.
Yay, I love a future of creative works being nothing but derivatives hardly touched by human hands. I love getting shoveled content from talentless hacks trying to make a buck and questioning everything I see now online and onward as this persists. AI isn't even Ai, it's just as you said "patterns (Human work)" shoveled through and sold back to you. Lets be real, these models wouldn't be anywhere near what is shown now without the copyrighted work done by thousands of human artists.
@@vdk_exposes4802 Copyrght status IMO seems like a weird thing to focus on, vs licensing status and/or whether licensing is needed, since anything eligible is considered copyrighted upon creation in the US (still need registration to sue though) - that means works from people who explicitly allow it in writing, and creative commons works licensed in a way where they can be used for training, are still copyrighted works.
@@vdk_exposes4802 Nope as they are shown to people molding their neural nets, thus making any display of art for a human viewing a public use as training data.
@@lyndakorner2383 Actually, the commenter is correct. A work is copyrighted without registration, but if you're going to litigate, it has to be registered.
That’s why I said copyright exists at creation. See Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-street. Supreme Court unanimous ruling that a copyright holder cannot sue unless they have a valid copyright registration certificate.
Though even if infringement happens before you registered the piece, you may still register and collect damages and their related profits, but the process will naturally be more difficult as you will be required to prove that you were indeed the rightful copyright holder.
Exactly you’ll need records like a timestamp or log of when you uploaded to deviant art that art you drew 10 years ago and proof its your account. Do artists maintain well organized records?
7:50. Do you think say the Chinese or the Russians are limiting their A.I. Models because of "copyright law or issues" no we are limiting ourselves tho and people like us here in the "west" America and Europe... our Russian and Chinese friends are not they are moving head if we limit what people can do with A.I. because of pity copyright we will regret it later....
They can try to do anything they want about copyright, will get to a point where the prompts themselves will fuel the de AI with the so called overratted "human creativity". That is what has been ocurring in organic neural networks, aka brains for thousands of years.
Copyright never applies to research uses and it doesn't apply to kids, either. It only applies to commercial uses that hurt the authors. You are barking up all the wrong trees.
I believe the SCOTUS will settle on the side of the artists
Machines should not have the same rights as people.
Works made with paintbrushes and cameras - can be copyrighted. Images made with 3D software and photoshop - can be coprighted. AI imagery - can NOT be copyrighted. AI imagery mixed with OTHER DIGITAL MEDIA BY the user inside of photoshop - copyrightable?
Say AI can not be copyrightable, then people will START LYING ABOUT IF THEY USED AI AT ALL IN THEIR IMAGES! YOU CAN NOT KNOW if an artist removes all the AI mistakes inside of PHOTOSHOP BY HAND!
That’s called Copyright fraud and it’s not unique to AI. There are civil and criminal penalties against it.
That's not really how this works.
what about the open-source case?
Content creators should establish EULA's the same way software companies do. For instance, "Users cannot use any of the images on my website for the training of AI models. The user agrees to pay liquidated damages in the sum of $1 Million per image ingested by an AI system." So, when the AI system crawls your site to ingest your images into their model, they are in violation of your terms and conditions, and therefore owe you millions of dollars in liquidated damages. Now, obviously it's going to have to be litigated as to whether or not the AI crawler going to your site constitutes "agreeing" to your terms. I would argue that it does. If my pet cat goes onto your property and digs up your flowers, then I am liable for the damage my cat caused. I can't say "well, I don't know where my cat is going, and therefore I'm not liable for the damage." Likewise, the owners/operators of AI systems SHOULD be considered to be responsible for adhering to the terms and conditions of the sites and platforms that they crawl.
Not so sure that would work - at least, the damages part of it.
1:46
7:05
No
I don't care about who created what I just want my super advanced detailed A.I. images to look as great as possible. You don't deserve any royalties 😂😂😂😂😒.....
If any Image in pixels, or strings in a content, has a name or description and fall under a category, or under a classification than it fall under a copyright law. For the machine to learn it needs input a numbers of images and a known image at the output. The machine trained itself to learn one of the input images is similar to the output image and predicted both are from the same classification/ category and etc.
But this chatGPT is not a machine learning technology. It is a search engine technology.
Why the chatGPT name the input as prompt engineering. Search engine and prompt engine? You don't name these two as engine, do you? ChatGPT is the advanced version of Search engine, agree.
This time the user can describe object in detail and ChatGPT search the desribed object on the internet for the user.
If the user name to object Mickey mouse from a movie, the chatGPT output a Mickey mouse image in that movie to the user. That is ChatGPT provide a service to the user and the user has to determine the image is a copyright image. The onus is one the user how and where he want to use the image in or at. It look like the ChapGPT technology is good for use in restricted industry only. A 4 wheel car can only use on a proper designed road meant for cars only, for example. Oops, I hope I did not burst the bubble here.
Thanks God human can keep their jobs and kick ChatGPT down the road like a trash can.
The idea of a new technology can be use all all industries does not make sense, in this case.
The meta verse was dumb. The quest 2 vr headset is an amazing affordable VR system
Everything is developed from what has happened before. We are like computers and use our experience of life, what we see and hear to create ‘new’ from what’s gone before.
So? Does that means copyright law was just a bunch of bs?
@@jaxkk1119 AI artist would say anything to get recognized as Super Real Artists during their fabulous appetizer with other AI artists😂😂 now we are computers as it say 😂😂
@@arcangeel4828 There is a non zero chance this is a bot shilling, this anthropomorphizing bullshit is flooding every corner of the internet talking about genAI, the number of people that both know how art works and also know how machine learning works is very small for the amount of "we're just shitty computers bro its the same" comments we are seeing.Keep in mind that the entire internet, this platform included (youtube content is being scrapped daily without anyone consent) is owned by people who stand to to benefit massively from getting away with stealing the entire cultural output of the human race. The spider caught everyone in its web, now its time to eat.
Ideas are not copyrightable, only the creative expression of them. What AIs are doing would not be infringement if a human did it, so it's difficult to see how a machine engaging in the same process could run afoul of copyright law. There may be other legal theories that could apply, but copyright seems like a dead end.
I’m gonna say some stuff that’s probably gonna make a lot of people mad but be honest I don’t care. Let me tell you something copyright way back in the day was necessary nowadays the fact that since the 1950s we have way over doubled our population we went from 3 billion people on the planet to now 8 billion and I believe copyright as we know it should go away and here is why I’m sick and tired of people saying that oh this is my original work it’s original. Let me tell you something there is no such thing as original work you cannot create anything, that is technically original unless you happen to see or witness something that no one else has ever seen before everybody copies other people because let me tell you something creativity is nothing more than taking no ideas and putting them together in a new form you can create a new form, but there’s no such thing as originality Because everything that has been created has been taken from many other factors and put together into something new, but it’s not original it’s just new, so when you go when you watch a superhero movie, you see some aliens or whatever if you break that character down to its base parts, you will find it’s related to something else that already Exists, so when people try to push that I created something original I’m gonna call them out on that because let me tell you something the Disney corporation in 1976 and in 1998 use their power money and influence to get the Supreme Court to change the copyright system twice Where it used to be you’d get 24 years and then after that 24 years you could sign up for another 24 years and then it would end up in the public domain but now because of what Disney has done goes from the lifetime of the artist or artists And 90 years after that, so a lot of stuff can take up to almost 200 years to end up in the public domain and stuff that already exist within the public domain that corporations have been used to make movies off of our TV shows they copyright those movies or TV shows, which then makes the works from the public domain, not usable for the average person without infringing on that companies copyright, even though they took their stuff from the public domain Let me tell you something copyright laws do not protect the individual. They protect the corporations because let me tell you something you can create something amazing but then if a corporation decides they want it they’re gonna get it and good luck fighting against a multi billion dollar corporation that has better lawyers than you will ever be able to get it it would cost you more money to fight them to just give it to them Copyright does nothing with patents do nothing more than hinder creativity or new inventions or new medicine because let me tell you something there was a company that eventually went under. That was actually creating a new drug that would almost cure Alzheimer’s. It’s not wasn’t an ultimate you know fix all, but they needed little bits of other peoples patterns, when it came to Medicine to create the drug, unfortunately even though they weren’t taking the person full idea, they were just taking little snippets. Those industries were not willing to give up those little bits because it was under their patent so basically because of these other industries, they prevented a drug that would solve a problem for people with Alzheimer’s, which is a horrible thing to have from being able to think normal again, and to be able to live their life, so copyright laws and patents do nothing more than hinder creativity, new ideas, new inventions, new medicines and much more at this point they just need to go away completely because let me tell you something somebody can be creating something whether it’s an invention whether it’s a medicine, whether it’s an piece of artwork, there’s always gonna be multiple other people working on similar ideas or something exactly the same as somebody else And I always use the telephone as an example. Yes, Graham was the one who ended up being known to creating the telephone. Unfortunately, there was at least almost a dozen other people that were working on a similar technology, and once he patent that idea, it prevented other people from creating their own version of the telephone, which would created better phones Because competition is what drives innovation and without competition you get a stagnant stuff let’s take music for example, it is almost impossible to not make something similar to somebody else because music only has so many notes you can work with so eventually you’re gonna create something that sounds like somebody else’s and people will copyright their music, and then sue those people to know, and if they even take a snippet of that entire song and use it for their own stuff And I do not like it should be free to make what they want because at the end of the day it’s down to what the consumer the person that wants to purchase it really wants because if somebody for instance and I’m gonna use Disney as an example makes Mickey Mouse years. Let’s say they create something that Disney never would’ve actually made, well Disney’s gonna come out for that person even though they made something that’s new and interesting to somebody else but the Disney corporation doesn’t like it well, here’s the thing if an industry exist or people are creating things and somebody else create something similar and that person doesn’t like it here’s what actually should happen. Those people should get together and create more of those items and use all those different ideas to create different ideas that work together, because back in the day when things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who and many other franchises existed, and the people that actually created them didn’t care that people made their own movies their own shows their own things based on that franchise because to them the moment they created something for everybody else that became theirs Because without those people supporting that idea, it would have the height so by attacking those people telling them how dare you do this you push them away and you slowly start losing money yes, there are some people that will step up and buy it anyway but you won’t get as much as you used to Ultimately if people find that certain technology or certain things coming into being are gonna affect them maybe they should create something better. Maybe they shouldn’t charge an arm and a leg for the things they want because for me I would love to get a lot of artwork done unfortunately it would cost me hundreds of dollars and I do not have that kind of money now. Somebody worked with me created the stuff I needed and I created stuff that they needed then we can work something out but people don’t wanna do that, so I’m gonna use something like AI to create something at least close to what I want for very little money because we work together as a species and help each other out. You can actually go further but people want to hold onto their stuff make it impossible for other people to come over similar stuff and that’s where things become an issue.
3:51. I believe this guy because he's basically supporting my ability to use A.I. Generators to create any type of art no matter what totally uncensored and no copyright BS... 😂😂😒.
The “AI creates just like human does” argument is so nonsense BS.
First of all human creativity don’t just depends on their experience, their creativity also heavily depends on their natural instinct, which is partly shaped by each persons unique genetics and the physical structure of the brain, neither of which is shaped by learning from actual experiences, while an AI isn’t even a physical being, they are literally just the same neural networks running on the same model of hardware (such as a GPU), and that it cannot function out of the box without any input precisely because they are different from human being that have genetics which is all that is needed to develop a brain that does not need software to be “installed” in it to be able to work; AI does not have natural instinct, the GPU that runs the neural network are manufactured without the ability to function by itself, and the neural network itself cannot even exist without training data, while humans does not need “training data” to exist, all they needed is already in nature and in their genetics.
Second of all, if they do agree that AI learns like human, then why does the human who are using it get all the rights from the work the AI created? People who are pro AI really want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to argue that AI learns just like humans in order to justify scraping copyrighted work, while still want to claim that they created those work so they can claim copy right for themselves. Utter hypocrisy.
No Artist today has created any original work. Its all inspired or takwn from past artists.
What about blind artists?
People take pictures of buildings. Sell the photos and never pay the architect that designed the art the photographer is profiting off of.
AI isnt the one taking the photograph. They are taking a photograph of a photograph, which is copyright infringement.
that’s actually illegal in some places. You can’t sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night, because the light display is protected. Look it up.
Also, some buildings have been removed from video games and movies over trademark infringement. One example is the Freedom Tower in the video game’s Spiderman and Spiderman 2
@badpuppy3 not any place in the United States
The legal system always needs idiots like Stephen Thaler to come forward. To think you, the human, could claim a copyright for “art” generated by a computer program… my gawd the profound ignorance of lazy humans can be astounding sometimes 😂🤣
The mega corporations benefit
The training data generative A.I. models use only reveal patterns. The models create original works by taking those patterns and applying them to novel prompts while inserting a degree of randomness that results in a work that is original.
That's not the problem my guy🙅 the problem is the training images. Those patterns are copyrighted
Yay, I love a future of creative works being nothing but derivatives hardly touched by human hands. I love getting shoveled content from talentless hacks trying to make a buck and questioning everything I see now online and onward as this persists. AI isn't even Ai, it's just as you said "patterns (Human work)" shoveled through and sold back to you. Lets be real, these models wouldn't be anywhere near what is shown now without the copyrighted work done by thousands of human artists.
@@vdk_exposes4802 Copyrght status IMO seems like a weird thing to focus on, vs licensing status and/or whether licensing is needed, since anything eligible is considered copyrighted upon creation in the US (still need registration to sue though) - that means works from people who explicitly allow it in writing, and creative commons works licensed in a way where they can be used for training, are still copyrighted works.
@@vdk_exposes4802 Nope as they are shown to people molding their neural nets, thus making any display of art for a human viewing a public use as training data.
@@vdk_exposes4802 Those patterns are used by humans the same way, great artists steal.
Do married couples get to sue non married comedians for stealing joke ideas from married couples?
Another rambler that makes no sense.
You can't copyright your likeness, there's multiple people out there that looks just like you or even have the same name😮
Remember, if you don't register your art copyright you can't sue. Copyright exists at creation but has no legal remedy till registration.
That assertion is not true at all.
Copyrighted works do not require registration.
@@lyndakorner2383 Actually, the commenter is correct. A work is copyrighted without registration, but if you're going to litigate, it has to be registered.
That’s why I said copyright exists at creation. See Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-street. Supreme Court unanimous ruling that a copyright holder cannot sue unless they have a valid copyright registration certificate.
Though even if infringement happens before you registered the piece, you may still register and collect damages and their related profits, but the process will naturally be more difficult as you will be required to prove that you were indeed the rightful copyright holder.
Exactly you’ll need records like a timestamp or log of when you uploaded to deviant art that art you drew 10 years ago and proof its your account. Do artists maintain well organized records?
7:50. Do you think say the Chinese or the Russians are limiting their A.I. Models because of "copyright law or issues" no we are limiting ourselves tho and people like us here in the "west" America and Europe... our Russian and Chinese friends are not they are moving head if we limit what people can do with A.I. because of pity copyright we will regret it later....
they will ruin their economies by putting countless white collar workers out of jobs, thats a win for the US
They can try to do anything they want about copyright, will get to a point where the prompts themselves will fuel the de AI with the so called overratted "human creativity". That is what has been ocurring in organic neural networks, aka brains for thousands of years.
The artists are not doing anything really unique. Anime for example all look very similar, so AI creating anime will look like all the crap out there.
tldw, you don't, copyright will be obsolete instead. Your laws won't apply to all countries or some kid doing AI experiments from his mom's basement.
Copyright never applies to research uses and it doesn't apply to kids, either. It only applies to commercial uses that hurt the authors. You are barking up all the wrong trees.
LLMs will soon lead us to AGI. ASI by 2045. The world will change forever.
bullshit, ai is still manage by groups of people and they should be held accountable there is your human input.