That’s the point, it’s almost a ship of Theseus situation.
At what point does the work become its own compared to a copy? How much variation is required? How many works are needed for sampling before its designing information based on large scale sentence structures instead of just copying exactly what it’s reading?
Legislation can’t occur until a benchmark is reached or we just say wholesale that AI is copyright infringement based purely on its existence and training.
To the contrary, litigation occurs all the time and is subject to the opinions of the judge, and there is no consistency between cases. So when caught between an artist’s original work and a derivative product made by a generative AI (and then gone over by a human enough to qualify as a copyrightable work) it’s going to come down to which side has a better legal team and a war chest. Or they’ll just settle out of court.
That’s the point, it’s almost a ship of Theseus situation.
At what point does the work become its own compared to a copy? How much variation is required? How many works are needed for sampling before its designing information based on large scale sentence structures instead of just copying exactly what it’s reading?
Legislation can’t occur until a benchmark is reached or we just say wholesale that AI is copyright infringement based purely on its existence and training.
To the contrary, litigation occurs all the time and is subject to the opinions of the judge, and there is no consistency between cases. So when caught between an artist’s original work and a derivative product made by a generative AI (and then gone over by a human enough to qualify as a copyrightable work) it’s going to come down to which side has a better legal team and a war chest. Or they’ll just settle out of court.