Skyrim VAs are speaking out about the spread of pornographic AI mods.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn’t contain any identifiable “copies” of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.

    If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.

    • ChemicalRascal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn’t contain any identifiable “copies” of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.

      That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made, and certainly not something that has been tested in court, let alone found to be true.

      In the context of existing legal precedent, there’s an argument to be made that the resulting model is itself a derivative work of the copyright-protected works, even if it does not literally contain an identifiable copy, as it is a derivative of the work in the common meaning of the term.

      If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.

      A key distinction here is that a human brain is not a work, and in that sense, a human brain learning things is not a derivative work.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made

        No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they’re structured. They really don’t contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

        and certainly not something that has been tested in court

        Sure, this is brand new tech. It takes time for the court cases to churn their way through the system. If that’s going to be the ultimate arbiter, though, then what’s to discuss in the meantime?

        • IncognitoErgoSum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted. And yes, images and sounds and video stored on a computer are numbers too, but those can be played back or viewed by a human in a meaningful way, and as such represent a work.