BUT IS IT ART?

[Chris M]

Is it fair use to scrape every one of Stephen King's novels? Or everyone of Margarete Atwood's novels?

Fair Use is a very weak argument and generally refers to non-commercial use. I see an image of yours on the web, I download it for a class project. But if I download that image of yours and repackage it as my image — even with a few modifications (this happens all the time with our images being offered as NFTs) then that is a copyright violation.

But yes, these apps amount to locking the barn door after the horses have been stolen. It would have to be going forward. If there is any going forward at this point.

I'm not taking sides here, just adding food for thought.

The scraping of existing work, be it art, science, coding or literature, isn't the hill to make your stand on. Stephen King learnt to read and write by (essentially) scraping knowledge from people before him. I don't know in Mr King's case, but a lot of creators will say they were influenced by other people. The problem that will need addressing in the near future is precisely replicating existing works.

Two real world examples.
There are AI voice changers using famous singers. My son sent me a track he was working on, saying that Taylor Swift had emailed him begging to do the vocals. He even sent a sample. It was, indeed, Taylor Swift...AI Taylor Swift.
Mr Trump has been popping up all over social media in all sorts of places, poses and scenarios that the real Mr Trump would not be seen in.

Both of those examples are here, today. Both will fool the vast majority of people. How long will it be before lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, corporate HR etc. are caught proving that Mr Trump actually was drunk as a skunk on the number 77 bus singing like Taylor Swift. We have video proof. Here's a picture. We have audio.

Anyone can look at a painting and emulate the style, adding their own 'flair'. Anyone can read Mr King's novels and write about a possessed car. As long as they don't claim to be that actual someone, then that's acceptable. Why is AI any different?

I genuinely think that vandalising an LLM is rather petty and completely pointless. Anyone remember dual cassettes, VCRs, DRM, DVD burners, 3D printers. All of them were going to be the ruin of something.

[handrawn]

now it my turn to be with Chris

It's a game changer - the old 'good artists copy, great artists steal' with a new twist, and I don't think you can hold back the tide

Anyone can look at a painting and emulate the style, adding their own 'flair'. Anyone can read Mr King's novels and write about a possessed car. As long as they don't claim to be that actual someone, then that's acceptable. Why is AI any different? [cf:] The problem that will need addressing in the near future is precisely replicating existing works

a question of degree... and we may have to accept that, up to a point, we have left [strict] copyright behind; in the same way that you can legitimately manipulate a person's image as long as you do not defame them, you can now do the same to their creations as long as you don't replicate

that is what is meant here by 'fair usage' - sampling has been part of commercial music for quite some time; this is sampling on a grand scale...

[Chris M]

>>> Making Chat (ro)Bots - YouTube <<<

8 minutes long. Shows how changing the FDM (Fine Detail Model) is just as important as the prompt. Same robot, same simple prompt, different personalities (FDM).

I've found this to be true when creating AI art as well.