A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.
The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.
Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.
(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:
Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)
Doesn’t this infringe on fair use? e.g. if i’m making a parody of something and I mimic the original even by using a portion of the original’s text word for word.
Everyone is so obsessed with having a monopoly over everything, it’s not what is best for 8 billion people.
This is a brutally dystopian law. Forget the AI angle and turn on your brain.
Any information will get a label saying who owns it and what can be done with it. Tampering with these labels becomes a crime. This is the infrastructure for the complete control of the flow of all information.
It’s like applying DRM law to all media ever. And we know the problems with DRM already, as exemplified 2 decades ago by Cory Doctorow in his talk at Microsoft to convince them not to endorse and use it.
Exactly, this isn’t about any sort of AI, this is the old playbook of trying to digitally track images, just with the current label slapped on. Regardless of your opinion on AI, this is a terrible way to solve this.
This sounds like a way to get media companies and tech companies to fight.
Unfortunately I expect that they will both somehow win and individuals will be worse off. This is the U-S-A god damn it.
There will be no fight. Some fat stacks of cheddar will change hands and this will fail at the voting stage.
There’s absolutely no way to enforce this.
This is essentially regulatory capture. The article is very lax on calling it what it is.
A few things to consider:
-
Laws can’t be applied retroactively, this would essentially close the door behind Openai, Google and Microsoft. Openai with sora in conjunction with the big Hollywood companies will be the only ones able to do proper video generation.
-
Individuals will not be getting paid, databrokers will.
-
They can easily pay pennies to a third world artist to build them a dataset copying a style. Styles are not copyrightable.
-
The open source scene is completely dead in the water and so is fine tuning for individuals.
Edit: This isn’t entirely true, there is more leeway for non commercial models, see comments below.
-
AI isn’t going away, all this does is force us and the economy into a subscription model.
-
Companies like Disney, Getty and Adobe reap everything.
In a perfect world, this bill would be aiming to make all models copyleft instead but sadly, no one is lobbying for that in Washington and money talks.
Yup, I fucking knew it. I knew this is what would happen with everyone bitching about copyright this and that. I knew any legislation that came as a result was going be bastardized and dressed up to make it look like it’s for everyone when in reality it’s going to mostly benefit big corps that can afford licensing fees and teams of lawyers.
People could not/would not understand how these AI models actually processes images/text or the concept of “If you post publicly, expect it to be used publicly” and here we are…
As always, the anprims/luddites/ecofashies (who downvoted me) are like an anvil to left-wing ideas of progress, we’re too busy arguing amongst ourselves to make a stand to protect open source AI from regulation.
Honestly I blame Hbomberguy personally. People were a lot more open-minded before he tacked on that shitty little AI snark at the end of his plagiarism video.
-
I posted this in a thread, but Im gonna make it a parent comment for those who support this bill.
Consider youtube poop, Im serious. Every clip in them is sourced from preexisting audio and video, and mixed or distorted in a comedic format. You could make an AI to make youtube poops using those same clips and other “poops” as training data. What it outputs might be of lower quality (less funny), but in a technical sense it would be made in an identical fashion. And, to the chagrin of Disney, Nintendo, and Viacom, these are considered legally distinct entities; because I dont watch Frying Nemo in place of Finding Nemo. So why would it be any different when an AI makes it?
My best guess would be intent, which I think is an important component of fair use. The intent of youtube poop creators could be considered parody and while someone could use AI to create parody, the intent of creating the AI model itself is not parody (at least not for these massive AI models that most people use).
Transformation is in itself fair use is the thing. Ytp doesnt need to be parody or critique or anything else, because its fundamentally no longer the same product as whatever the source was as a direct result of editing
Still, the AI model itself is not transformative, it is merely incorporating that data into its training set.
But what it outputs IS transformative, which- of course- is the e primary use
If I include an image of mickey mouse (ripped straight from disney) in my application in a proprietary compression format, then the application decompresses that image and changes the hue (or whatever other kind of modification), then these are technically “transformations” but they’re not transformative.
The law being violated there is trademark, not copyright
No it isn’t. The image of mickey mouse was literally copied (hence copyright, literally right to copy). Regardless, that’s still IP law being violated so I don’t know how that helps your case.
I see this argument a lot as a defense for AI art and I see a couple major flaws in this line of thinking.
First, it’s treating the AI art as somehow the same as a dirivitive (or parody) work made by an actual person. These two things are not the same and should not be argued like they are.
AI art isn’t just dirivitive. It’s a Frankenstein’s Monster of a bunch of different pieces of art stitched together in a procedural way that doesn’t credit and in fact obfuscates the original works. This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst. Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person. And would typically at least credit the original works being riffed on. This involves actual creative thought and human touch. Even if it is dirivitive it’s unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.
AI art cannot and will not ever be unique, at least not when used to just create a work wholesale. Because it’s not being creative. It’s calculating and nothing more. (at least if we’re talking about current tachnology. A possible future General AI could flout this argument. But that would get into an AI personhood conversation not really relevant to our current machine learning tech).
Secondly, no one is worried that some hypothetical shitty AI video is going to somehow usurp the work that it’s stealing from. What people are worried about is that AI art is going to be used in place of hiring actual artists for bigger projects. And the fact that this AI art exists solely because it’s scraped the internet of art from those same artists now losing their livelihoods makes the tech incredibly fucked up.
Now don’t get me wrong though. I do believe machine learning has its place in society. And we’ve already been using it for a long time to help with large tasks that would be incredibly difficult if not impossible for people to do on their own in a bunch of different industries. Things like medicine research in the pharmaceutical sector and fraud monitoring in the banking sector come to mind.
Also, there is an argument to be had that machine learning algorithms could be used as tools in creating art. I don’t really have a problem with those use cases. Things that come to mind are a bunch of different tools that exist in music production right now that in my opinion help in allowing artists to fulfill their vision. Watch some There I Ruined It videos on YouTube to see what I mean. Yeah that guy is using AI to make himself sound like other musicians. But that guy also had to be a really solid singer and impressionist in the first place for those songs to be any good at all.
This is problematic at best and flat out dishonest thievery at worst.
You could say that about literally all art - no artist can name and attribute every single influence that played even the smallest effect on the work created. Say I commissioned an image of an anime man in a french maid uniform in a 4 panel pop art style. In creating it at some level you are going to draw on every anime image you’ve seen, every picture of a french maid uniform, every 4 panel pop art image and create something that’s a synthesis of all those things. You can’t name and attribute every single example of all of those things you have ever seen, as well as anything else that might have influenced you.
Whereas a work made by a person that is dirivitive or parody has actual work and thought put into it by an actual person.
…and this is the crux of it - it’s not anything related to the actual content of the image, it’s simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that’s only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.
Even if it is dirivitive it’s unique in some way simply by virtue of being made by a person.
Again, the argument is it’s nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be “art” by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?
You could say that about literally all art
Except I couldn’t. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity’s art output to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person’s text prompt.
They’re just not the same thing at all.
The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.
…and this is the crux of it - it’s not anything related to the actual content of the image, it’s simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that’s only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.
Yes it has nothing to do with the content of the image. I never claimed otherwise. In fact AI art sometimes being indistinguishable from human made art is part of the problem. But we’re not just talking about automating someone’s job. We’re talking about automating someone’s passion. Automating someone’s dream career. In an ideal world we’d automate all the shitty jobs and pay everyone to play guitar, paint a portrait, write a book, or direct a film. Art being made by AI won’t just take away jobs for creatives, it’ll sap away the drive we have as humans to create. And when we create less our existence will be filled with even more bleakness than it already is.
Again, the argument is it’s nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be “art” by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?
I’m not certain I understand what you’re asking. But If the human is the one making the decision on where to put the pixel then yeah that would be fine. But at no point am I arguing about whether or not AI art is “art”. That would just be a dumb semantic argument that’d go nowhere. I’m merely discussing why I believe AI art to be unethical. And the taking away work from creatives point is only one facet as to why I do.
With all respect, your argument has a pretty obvious emotional valence. You don’t care if the result is 1:1, you care that it happened in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Art can be an outlet for self expression and no one is taking that away. What’s it to you if I enjoy asking an AI for art?
The fact of the matter is, capitalism has never been a good place for artists who want to follow their dream. If that’s something you want, then I’d suggest supporting the end of all work for money that automation provides. Then people can truly work on whatever they care about all day and not have to worry about feeding themselves.
Except I couldn’t. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity’s art output
The big differences there are whether it’s a person or a machine and just how much art one can digest as inspiration. Again, reference my example of a commission above - the main difference between a human and an AI making it is whether they look up a couple dozen examples of each element to get a general idea or 100 million examples of each element to mathematically generalize the idea, and the main reason the number of examples and power requirements need to be so different is that humans are extremely efficient pattern developing and matching machines, so efficient that sometimes the brain just fills in the pattern instead of bothering to fully process sensory inputs (which is why a lot of optical illusions work).
to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person’s text prompt.
At a level, “churning out an image to best satisfy some random person’s” description is essentially what happens when someone commissions a work or when producing things to spec as part of some project. They don’t generally say “just draw whatever you are inspired to” and hope they like the result. This is the thing that AI image generators are specifically good at, and is why I say it’s about protectionism for a class of workers who didn’t think their jobs could be automated away in whole or in part.
But we’re not just talking about automating someone’s job.
Except you are, you are just deeming that job “someone’s dream career” as though that changes whether or not it’s a job that is being automated in whole or part. Yes, it’s going to hurt the market for commissioned art works and the like. Again, upset because those jobs are supposed to be immune to automation and - whoopsie - they aren’t. Join the people in manufacturing, or the makers of buggy whips.
We’re talking about automating someone’s passion.
Literally no one is going to ban or forbid anyone from creating art because AI art exists.
The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.
This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can’t draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).
This is basically trying to argue there’s only 1 correct way to make “art”, which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn’t art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. “Expression” can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?
This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can’t draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).
Never claimed it wasn’t an opinion. And I fully acknowledge that tools can make creating art easier. Hell, I even support the use of machine learning tools when making art. When used as tools and not as a means of creating art wholesale they can enable creativity. But, I’m sorry, writing a text prompt for an AI to produce an image is not making art (for the person writing the prompt). It’s writing a prompt. In the same way that a project manager writing a brief for a contract artist to fullfil is also not creating the art. The AI is producing the art (and by extension the artists who created the works the AI was trained off of). Your friend with aphantasia is not.
This is basically trying to argue there’s only 1 correct way to make “art”, which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn’t art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. “Expression” can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?
Again, I never said any form of art was invalid. Not even AI art. Nor do I think AI art isn’t art. AI art is perfectly capable of creating something worthwhile by means of its content. It’s basing it’s output on worthwhile works of art created by people after all. I’m merely arguing AI art is unethical. If you made a mural out of the blood of children you murdered it’d still be art. But it sure as shit wouldn’t be ethical.
Why do these acts always have such stupid acronyms
As if a law could prevent anything of that. They simply demand “Pigs Must Fly”, and don’t waste a thought on how utterly unrealistic this is.
As if a law could prevent anything of that.
Generating legal liability goes a long way towards curbing how businesses behave, particularly when they can be picked on by rival mega-firms.
But because we’ve made class action lawsuits increasingly difficult, particularly after Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the idea that individual claimants can effectively prosecute a case against an interstate or international entity is increasingly farcical. You’re either going to need big state agencies (the EU seems increasingly invested in cracking down on American tech companies for anti-competitive practices) or rivalrous business interests (MPAA/RIAA going after Big Tech backed AI firms) to leverage this kind of liability. It’s still going to be open season on everyone using DeviantArt or Pinterest or whatever.
I don’t like AI but I hate intellectual property. And the people that want to restrict AI don’t seem to understand the implications that has. I am ok with copying as I think copyright is a load of bullocks. But they aren’t even reproducing the content verbatim are they? They’re ‘taking inspiration’ if you will, transforming it into something completely different. Seems like fair use to me. It’s just that people hate AI, and hate the companies behind it, and don’t get me wrong, rightfully so, but that shouldn’t get us all to stop thinking critically about intellectual property laws.
Just because intellectual property laws currently can be exploited doesnt mean there is no place for it at all.
That’s an opinion you can have, but I can just as well hold mine, which is that restricting any form of copying is unnatural and harmful to society.
Do you believe noone should be able to charge money for their art?
That’s right. They can put their art up for sale, but if someone wants to take a free copy nothing should be able to stop them.
That effectively makes all art free. At best its donation based.
Yes, that would be best.
That would lead to most art being produced by people who are wealthy enough to afford to produce it for free, wouldn’t it?
What incentive would a working person have to work on becoming an artist? Its not like artists are decided at birth or something.
I’m the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.
This law will ensure only giant tech company have this power. Hobbyists and home players will be prevented.
What are you basing that on?
Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers.
Doesn’t say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.
That’s like saying you are just as protected regardless which side of the mote you stand on.
It’s pretty clear the way things are shaping up is only the big tech elite will control AI and they will lord us over with it.
The worst thing that could happen with AI. It falling into the hands of the elites, is happening.
I respectfully disagree. I think small time AI (read: pretty much all the custom models on hugging face) will get a giant boost out of this, since they can get away with training on “custom” data sets - since they are too small to be held accountable.
However, those models will become worthless to enterprise level models, since they wouldn’t be able to account for the legality. In other words, once you make big bucks of of AI you’ll have to prove your models were sourced properly. But if you’re just creating a model for small time use, you can get away with a lot.
I am skeptical that this is how it will turn out. I don’t really believe there will be a path from 0$ to challenging big tech without a roadblock of lawyers shutting you down with no way out on the way.
I don’t think so either, but to me that is the purpose.
Somewhere between small time personal-use ML and commercial exploitation, there should be ethical sourcing of input data, rather than the current method of “scrape all you can find, fuck copyright” that OpenAI & co are getting away with.
They’re ‘taking inspiration’ if you will, transforming it into something completely different.
That is not at all what takes place with A.I.
An A.I. doesn’t “learn” like a human does. It aggregates multiple chunks from multiple sources. It’s just really really tiny chunks so it’s hard to tell sometimes.
That’s why you can ask two AI’s to write a story based on the same prompt and some of their lines will be exactly the same. Because it’s not taking inspiration from, it’s literally copying bits and pieces of other works and it happens that they both chose that particular bit.
If you do that when writing a paper in university it’s called plagerism.
Get the fuck out of here with your “A.I. takes inspiration…” it copies nothing more. It doesn’t add anything new to the sum total of the creative zeitgeist because it’s just remixes of things that already exist.
it copies nothing more
it’s just remixes of things that already exist.
So it does do more than copying? Because as you said - it remixes.
It sounds like the line you’re trying to draw is not only arbitrary, but you yourself can’t even stick with it for more than one sentence.
Everything new is some unique combination of things that already exist, the elements it draws from are called sources and influences, and rules according to which they’re remixed are called techniques/structures e.g. most movies are three acts, and many feature specific techniques like J-cuts.
Heck even re-arranging elements of just one thing is a unique and different thing, or is your favourite song and a remix of it literally the same? Or does the remix not have artistic value, even though someone out there probably likes the remix, but not the original?
I think your confusion stems from the fact you’re a top shelf, grade-A Moron.
You’re an organic, locally sourced and ethically produced idiot, and you need to learn how basic ML works, what “new” is, and glance at some basic epistemology and metaphysics before you lead us to ruin because you don’t even understand what “new” entails, before your reactionary rhetoric leads us all down straight to cyberpunk dystopias.
If you put something on the Internet you are giving up ownership of it. This is reality and companies taking advantage of this for AI have already proven this is true.
You are not going to be able to put the cat back in the bag. The whole concept of ownership over art, ideas, and our very culture was always ridiculous.
It is past time to do away with the joke of the legal framework we call IP law. It is merely a tool for monied interests to extract more obscene profit from our culture at this point.
There is only one way forward and that is sweeping privacy protections. No more data collection, no more targeted advertising, no more dark patterns. The problem is corporations are not going to let that happen without a fight.
deleted by creator
Yeah in theory but in practice that isn’t happening. In theory the laws could be structured such that creatives are being paid fairly and distributors make some money and that the general public knows the stuff will be public domain in a relatively short period of time.
No one is doing it and they had hundreds of years to figure out how to do it. You are asking us to take it on faith and I personally will not.
There are plenty of internet culture outside Western that still respect ownership, people don’t just take random things on internet without permission. Western internet culture =/= entire internet.
Which cultures are you referring to?
Fakelandia it is on a continent that you probably haven’t heard of.
How would this even work when you sometimes can just remove the watermark by photoshoping?
In the same way that the law doesn’t prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.
Wow so much freedom. You can’t even alter a picture that you own.
?
I have ever right to remove a watermark from any image on my computer.
Not true however if you actually own the image then it’s unlikely to have a watermark
Is the photo of the image on my device? If so I own it. If you take a photo of it you own that photo as well.
I’m sure that’s how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there’s like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.
Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.
Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.
For those who are saying just photoshop.
https://methodshop.com/photoshop-money/
Obviously you can just use other software but PS is the main choice for image editing. What they need to do is put legislation in place and it will make the biggest players implement this form of drm.
The main goal is cementing the position of the giants, creating a bureaucratic mote around them to keep small players economically unviable.
People keep saying that, all the while ignoring that this bill is granting rights to small time creators to decide if they want their works used for machine learning.
Yes, this gives a head start to companies that have been abusing the system while it was still allowed. But stopping that behaviour too late is still better than not stopping it at all.
Small creators aren’t competition or an alternative to big tech.
If the only game in town is still big tech. You will need an army of lawyer to get leverage on them.
They did it. They’re passing the worst version of the AI law. Thats the end for open source AI! If this passes, all AI will be closed source, and only from giant tech companies. Im sure they will find a way to steal your stuff “legally”.
No open source plagiarism machine :(
Dw artbros and other corporation defenders will get curbstomped by the closed-source ones instead, not only will you be out of employment, but you will be unemployable without a ChatGPT subscription, and Altman/Musk/whoever will be worth trillions as a result. But at least it won’t be “plagiarism” because the lobbyists will ensure that it’s all nice and legal.
And the worst part is you honestly deserve it for not listening to us.
Also, this is you:
Okay, then lets ban art generators, problem solved!
That’s also not rational, but at least it’s consistent so it’s an improvement.
Anyway banning them is impossible, even if one country bans it, all the other countries will still have them - the internet is the whole world, remember? And even then, LLMs would still exist too, and arguably those are far more significant.
“Why ban bad thing if bad country allows bad thing?”
People are saying the same about raising the minimum wage, implementing labor protections, etc. “Okay, advocate for fair wages, but then that minimum wage job of yours will be outsourced to China/India/Vietnam/etc.!”
GenAI isn’t a bad thing though.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before you stands 8-year-old Billy Smith. He stands accused of training on copyrighted material. We actually have live video of him looking and reading books from the library. He he trained on the contents of over 100 books this year.
We ask you to enforce the maximum penalty and send his parents to prison.
No matter how much you’d like for it to be the case, proprietary algorithms owned by big corporations are not remotely comparable to children.
proprietary algorithms owned by big corporations
tell that to civitai users lol
- Your machine learning algorithms are not people. No amount of calling it Alex or giving it a voice stolen from a well-known actress will change that fact.
- If I traced an artwork or copied GPL licensed code into an non-GPL one, my ass would be beaten by others on the internet.
- So far, the main usecase of this generative technology is scamming, intentionally creating distrust in the artist community, and an even worse and scummier form of plagiarism, but it doesn’t matter because some shitpost that goes hard, “what if a content creator needs a stock photo?”, and “what if it could be used to resurrect your favorite artist?”.
- Power imbalance. There’s a difference a young creator not having money to buy a training material and a big corporation wanting to destroy their profession.
Thanks chatgpt
