Technology

60016 readers

3015 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

868

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

347 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i admit it's a hug issue, but the licensing costs are something that can be negotiated by the license holders in a structured settlement.

moving forward, AI companies can negotiate licensing deals for access to licensed works for AI training, and authors of published works can decide whether they want to make their works available to AI training (and their compensation rates) in future publishing contracts.

the solutions are simple-- the AI companies like OpenAI, Google, et al are just complaining because they don't want to fork over money to the copyright holders they ripped off and set a precedent that what their doing is wrong (legally or otherwise).

[–] goetzit -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but what I’m asking is: what do you think is a reasonable rate?

We are talking data sets that have millions of written works in them. If it costs hundreds or thousands per work, this venture almost doesn’t make sense anymore. If its $1 per work, or cents per work, then is it even worth it for each individual contributor to get $1 when it adds millions in operating costs?

In my opinion, this needs to be handled a lot more carefully than what is being proposed. We are potentially going to make AI datasets wayyyy too expensive for anyone to use aside from the largest companies in the market, and even then this will cause huge delays to that progress.

If AI is just blatantly copy and pasting what it read, then yes, I see that as a huge issue. But reading and learning from what it reads, no matter how rudimentary that “learning” may be, is much different than just copying works.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's not for me to decide. as I said, it is for either the courts to decide or for the content owners and the AI companies to negotiate a settlement (for prior infringements) and a negotiated contracted amount moving forward.

also, I agree that's it's a massive clusterfuck that these companies just purloined a fuckton of copyrighted material for profit without paying for it, but I'm glad that they're finally being called out.

[–] kklusz -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude, they said

If AI is just blatantly copy and pasting what it read, then yes, I see that as a huge issue.

That’s in no way agreeing “that’s it’s a massive clusterfuck that these companies just purloined a fuckton of copyrighted material for profit without paying for it”. Do you not understand that AI is not just copy and pasting content?