So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer?
So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them?
At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server?
What if they run all but the last layer of the model on the server, then finish the computation locally?
I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
no, my argument is that the tool being run by midjourney makes them liable for how it is operation. because it's their model, their program, their computer. They are responsible at every level.
>So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them?
not sure why you think that's relevant, but yes google is liable for copyright infringement facilitated by their platform. that's why if you upload a full-length video to youtube and the rights-holder posts a DMCA, google will delist or delete your video.
> At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server?
why the fuck would javascript change anything?
>I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
it really is, there are well-established precedents for how this works and it's only not "cut and dry" if you arbitrarily consider AI startups to be exempt from the same rules that apply to everybody else.
I still don't see how this would be any different from something like Adobe hosting a cloud-based version of Photoshop. Someone could use that tool to create an image that infringes on someone's copyrights, but I think you would be hard-pressed to convince people that Adobe is liable for the drawings that other people create with their tools.
> not sure why you think that's relevant, but yes google is liable for copyright infringement facilitated by their platform. that's why if you upload a full-length video to youtube and the rights-holder posts a DMCA, google will delist or delete your video.
The YouTube case is about Google themselves redistributing the copyrighted material. The distinction with the Google Docs example is that Google isn't distributing the copyrighted material, it's just a tool being used to facilitate the creation of that material.
The JavaScript remark was just because you implied that it made a difference whether the software was running locally or on Midjourney's servers. If that's the case, I want to know where you think the line is drawn between the two situations.
So, no, I still don't see how this is as cut and dry as you claim.
> >
> > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to.
> So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer?
> So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them?
But that's not what happening here. If Google docs hat a button, "put Harry Potter books here" that when pressed it puts the whole text of the Harry Potter books into the document. Now who do you think should be liable for copyright infringement, Google who put the whole text of Harry Potter books somewhere into the Google docs source code, or the user who pressed the button? Your argument seems to be the user, but I find that highly illogical.
The central issue is that the copyrighted images are already inside midjourney, the user is just getting them out via queries (pressing a button). The user is _not_ adding the copyrighted material to midjourney.
In all cases, the person committing the crime is the person to prosecute. What would happen if I used Photoshop to carefully recreate the image by hand? Or even a paint brush and canvas? It would still be illegal! What are you arguing to make illegal? The paint brush? For _some people_ making clones of copyrighted work is very easy, this tool makes is easy for more people. But for you, _it's the tool?_
And in any of these cases you're trying to protect the same IP holders that cut off access to content you purchased, so any idea of fairness in copyright is a joke at this point anyway. I work in that industry so I knew it was possible, but I never thought they would do it with a huge swath of content like what happened to play station owners. IP holders deserve no sympathy or protection under the law after that move.
You might say "but these are not the people we're trying to protect". Too bad, that's what any IP law restricting generative AI would protect. And consider the draconian means required to do so.
That's not how the Internet works. Google is not serving you the Harry Potter books contents, they (might) point you to a different server that (might) be serving you the books, but what theat website would be doing is in fact illegal in most jurisdictions. In contrast midjourney are the ones serving you the content, that is a huge difference and not "handwaving". If you don't see a difference there than I really don't know what to say.
> In all cases, the person committing the crime is the person to prosecute.
Yes and it is midjourney who is committing the crime. Their models contain the unlicenced copyrighted material and they sell a service using that material.
> What would happen if I used Photoshop to carefully recreate the image by hand? Or even a paint brush and canvas? It would still be illegal! What are you arguing to make illegal? The paint brush?
Why are you continuing to ignore the central point that midjourney contains the copyrighted work? That's completely different to being a brush?
> For _some people_ making clones of copyrighted work is very easy, this tool makes is easy for more people. But for you, _it's the tool?_
Yes because "the tool" is already making the clone, inside it's model.
> And in any of these cases you're trying to protect the same IP holders that cut off access to content you purchased, so any idea of fairness in copyright is a joke at this point anyway. I work in that industry so I knew it was possible, but I never thought they would do it with a huge swath of content like what happened to play station owners. IP holders deserve no sympathy or protection under the law after that move.
So instead we are happy for even larger corporations to just take all creative outputs (and that includes lots of open source software) simply feed their models and resell this work of others through their models essentially disowning the previous creators without paying anything? Now if these models would actually be freely available and all parameters published I might be OK with it as the end of copyright as we know it, but that's not what is happening here. We are essentially witnessing the dispossession and monopolization of knowledge by a few large corporations and startups.
> You might say "but these are not the people we're trying to protect". Too bad, that's what any IP law restricting generative AI would protect. And consider the draconian means required to do so.
