[HN Gopher] Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Tra...
___________________________________________________________________
Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training
Author : version_five
Score : 72 points
Date : 2023-05-31 20:58 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (technomancers.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (technomancers.ai)
| waboremo wrote:
| Is the wording accurate here? This is essentially the only source
| besides the untranslated article and the machine translated
| version sounds confusing (whether it applies to what is created
| by AI or what can be consumed in training).
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| What actually happened was that Takashi Kii of the
| Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan was arguing that the
| current laws (from 2018) are problematic because they are
| extremely loose and allow even illegally obtained content to be
| used for training, and he asked Keiko Nagao, Minister of
| Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology to confirm
| that this is the case.
|
| She confirmed that under current laws that's true but said that
| they need to keep an eye on it because there's a balance
| between the development of new AI technology and protection of
| copyright.
|
| The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
| Technology is also in the process of compiling information
| about case law on copyright and AI but there don't seem to be
| any current plans to amend the law again in either direction.
|
| (You can see the whole exchange here although the translated
| autogenerated subtitles on youtube may not be great:
| https://youtu.be/fyxx_0KmaKw?t=4457 )
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Japan also ranks 3rd (behind the USA & India, with larger
| populations) in ChatGPT usage:
| https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/
|
| There's also been discussion of their government using ChatGPT to
| reduce red tape:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-18/japan-gov...
|
| It's cool to see Japan and Japanese culture taking techno-
| optimist stances on AI.
| [deleted]
| nmkag wrote:
| "Despite having the world's third-largest economy, Japan's
| economic growth has been sluggish since the 1990s. Japan has the
| lowest per-capita income in the G-7. With the effective
| implementation of AI, it could potentially boost the nation's GDP
| by 50% or more in a short time. For Japan, which has been
| experiencing years of low growth, this is an exciting prospect."
|
| And I could potentially be a billionaire. Where is this based on?
| It seems to me that if AI boosts the GDP for the benefit of the
| 1% who steal all intellectual output ever produced, the rest will
| suffer.
|
| This is a horrible decision from Japan.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > This is a horrible decision from Japan.
|
| Eh, I doubt it.
|
| AI is potentially something that can massively increase
| productivity. With a declining population in the foreseeable
| future, an increased productivity may well be a boost that they
| need.
| Guthur wrote:
| Boost for who though? if it works out there'll be more for
| less. Wages won't increase, the number of jobs won't increase
| the price of assets will inflate. None of these are good
| things for 99% of us.
| visarga wrote:
| Looks like AI is more tightly coupled to the employee (user)
| than the employer. AI needs prompting and supervision, that
| is a human skill that is tied to the employee. When the
| employee moves to another company, they take their AI skills
| with them and original company can maybe retrain the model
| with his data, a stop-gap measure. I think there currently is
| no AI that works without human involvement in critical
| scenarios.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| So this means llm trained on libgen and ... which is huge.
|
| Current models are only trained on "open" texts.
| IvanAchlaqullah wrote:
| Miyazaki will definitely hate it. The last time someone demoed AI
| animation he said "I would never wish to incorporate this
| technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an
| insult to life itself." [1]
|
| And that was before stuff like GPT-1 or Stable Diffusion exist.
|
| [1] https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/hayao-miyazaki-
| ar...
| shagie wrote:
| There is a pair of videos on this subject that I find rather
| good and informed. They are from the channel "The Art of Aaron
| Blaise" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Blaise )
|
| Disney Animator REACTS to AI Animation!
| https://youtu.be/xm7BwEsdVbQ (this is watching the Corridor
| Crew's video)
|
| Why AI will NOT be taking Your Animation job -
| https://youtu.be/-lhbzbSck04
| brandelune wrote:
| The original links here, to the actual question asked and the
| answer by the minister:
|
| https://kiitaka.net/21312/
| waboremo wrote:
| This sounds like the exact opposite of what the title is
| claiming.
| throwaway33381 wrote:
| Yeah. Copyright laws in Japan are extremely strict. I would
| not be surprised at a complete ban on this. This is just a
| fluff piece like a lot of ads coming in recently.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| This would work if they also not allow generated AI to be
| copyrighted
| djaouen wrote:
| This is good news. This is basically stating that AI is inventive
| (which it is, in my humble opinion).
| acer4666 wrote:
| What if you overfit your model to the point of exact
| reproduction? Or anything in between that and what you consider
| inventive. Where is the line drawn.
| scottiebarnes wrote:
| So if you train an audio model on say, Eminem's voice, then write
| some songs and have it perform them...Would this output be legal
| to publish?
| numpad0 wrote:
| IIUC/IANAL: depends on whether anyone feels the data to be "it"
| or not. Provenance is not too relevant.
| shagie wrote:
| I've been amused by the WH40k videos narrated by David
| Attenborough.
|
| There was some discussion about this a few years ago regarding
| Lyrebird - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14182580
|
| In particular, celebrities have an additional right - Right of
| Publicity.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity
|
| > In the United States, the right of publicity is largely
| protected by state common or statutory law. Only about half the
| states have distinctly recognized a right of publicity. Of
| these, many do not recognize a right by that name but protect
| it as part of the Right of Privacy. The Restatement Second of
| Torts recognizes four types of invasions of privacy: intrusion,
| appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity, and
| false light.
|
| https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/
|
| > In the United States, no federal statute or case law
| recognizes the right of publicity, although federal unfair
| competition law recognizes a related statutory right to
| protection against false endorsement, association, or
| affiliation. A majority of states do, however, recognize the
| right of publicity by statute and/or case law. States diverge
| on whether the right survives posthumously and, if so, for how
| long, and also on whether the right of publicity is inheritable
| or assignable.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights (and in
| particular
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Japan )
|
| > In October 2007, J-pop duo Pink Lady sued Kobunsha for Y=3.7
| million after the publisher's magazine Josei Jishin used photos
| of the duo on an article on dieting through dancing without
| their permission. The case was rejected by the Tokyo District
| Court. In February 2012, the Supreme Court rejected the duo's
| appeal based on the right of publicity.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| What's the difference between that and someone else who just
| happens to sound like Eminem in terms out output?
|
| As long as you don't market yourself as Eminem that should be
| completely legal.
| scottiebarnes wrote:
| I suppose so. I'm just imagining these "ghost AI artists" who
| publish catalogues of music using the audible likeness of
| more prolific artists.
|
| I know that you could have always just hired an Eminem
| impersonator and have them lay down tracks...but this
| technology lets you achieve speed and scale. At least the
| Eminem impersonator was a real person. This is just a model
| learned off an artists voice.
| 2023throwawayy wrote:
| > At least the Eminem impersonator was a real person. This
| is just a model learned off an artists voice.
|
| I fail to see how that has any difference on the output.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| To anyone who disagrees: Am I allowed to learn how to draw
| Jigglypuff? I don't own Jigglypuff.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| Am I allowed to distribute these ROMs of Pokemon games over
| BitTorrent? I don't own Pokemon.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| No. I answered your question, do you have an answer for mine?
| snickerbockers wrote:
| you can draw it but you can't [legally] sell it without
| permission from The Pokemon Company. And you definitely
| can't start a new media franchise based on your OC which
| combines jigglypuff with Sonic the Hedgehog.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| God created emulators for ROMs to be loaded into them.
|
| To not distribute the ROMs would be heresy.
| circuit10 wrote:
| I mostly agree with your point but this isn't the best analogy
| because while you're allowed to learn to draw Jigglypuff, you
| probably could get in legal trouble for distributing or selling
| those drawing if it's not fair use. I think a better analogy is
| using Jigglypuff drawings to learn how to draw things like that
| in general and then creating your own character that's not
| exactly the same but uses some concepts you learnt
| sylware wrote:
| Considering the amount of animes Japan does produce, they could
| very probably train amazing AIs: they could assist in a
| significant way the creative process of such studios (look at
| digital corridor experiment).
|
| Worth to try for a long time and maybe waste a lot of resources.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| It'd be really great to finally see some anime models hit the
| Stable Diffusion scene.
| EscapeFromNY wrote:
| I hope this is sarcasm :)
|
| The anime crowd were years ahead of the curve.
| https://www.thiswaifudoesnotexist.net/ came out in 2019
| setr wrote:
| More than the anime production is that anime-fans are database
| animals -- they catalogue anime to ridiculous degrees. Some of
| the best image training datasets were always the boorus; anime
| fans have basically been prepping for ML/AI since the 80s
| nancyhn wrote:
| All countries will have to follow suit or are effectively
| committing seppuku, self selecting themselves out of the AI gene
| pool.
| wwweston wrote:
| If you're not going to socialize AI gains, and leave in place the
| social systems that value people by their output, waiving
| copyright or other IP is astoundingly anti-humane.
|
| What should be instead is that _fair use_ doesn 't apply to AI
| training. That is, anything other than explicitly negotiated opt-
| in should be illegal.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Eh, I disagree. Copyright laws are mostly bullshit anyway, and
| only tend to favor capital holders, who tend to buy up all the
| copyright they need. I would gladly see copyright rendered
| useless.
|
| The peasantry hardly benefits from it anyway.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I think this should generally be true. The aggregation performed
| by model training is highly lossy and the model itself is a
| derived work at worst and is certainly fair use. It may produce
| stuff that violates copyright, but the way you _use or
| distribute_ the product of the model that can violate copyright.
| Making it write code that's a clone of copyright code or making
| it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or making it
| reproduce books etc etc, then distributing the output, would be
| where the copyright violation occurs.
| mannyv wrote:
| There's no difference between an art student looking through a
| museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for
| training.
|
| Same could be said for reading. A medical student reading
| through textbooks or a writer who reads is essentially what an
| AI is doing.
|
| You can ask an art student to create something in a certain
| style. You can get writes to write in a certain style.
| Equivalent.
| Retric wrote:
| AI models will make 1:1 copies of training data where artists
| try and avoid doing so. It's common to obscure this copying
| by intentionally inserting lossy steps, but making an MP3
| isn't a new work.
| Trombone12 wrote:
| Indeed, if we don't care at all about "x is y" statements
| being true, they can be "applied" to reading.
|
| To determine if an art student and DALL-E really are the
| same, despite their _very obvious difference_ (one has arms
| and is part of a net of social relations while the other is
| intellectual property), will take some actual arguments which
| I presume you of course had planned to provide in a second
| comment from the start.
| antiterra wrote:
| A student is a human and AI is not. We don't have to apply
| the law equally to both regardless of how similar the method
| is.
| krapp wrote:
| >The aggregation performed by model training is highly lossy
| and the model itself is a derived work at worst and is
| certainly fair use.
|
| I mean, I've literally gotten the Superman logo in Stable
| Diffusion without even trying, so it isn't that lossy.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| And if you use it, you're violating copyright. But you will
| find no copy of the logo in the model data. The model is way
| too small to contain its training imagery from an information
| theoretic point of view.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright
| violation. There are exceptions (fair use, nomitive use etc)
| but just because people are rarely sued for personal copying
| doesnt equate to that copying being permitted. And trademark
| issues, such as the other commenter generating the superman
| logo, are subject to a host of other rules.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-31 23:00 UTC)