Skip Navigation

YouTube creator sues Nvidia and OpenAI for ‘unjust enrichment’ for using their videos for AI training

www.tomshardware.com YouTube creator sues Nvidia and OpenAI for ‘unjust enrichment’ for using their videos for AI training

Do AI LLMs create new and transformative works based on the data they scrape off the internet?

YouTube creator sues Nvidia and OpenAI for ‘unjust enrichment’ for using their videos for AI training
110

You're viewing a single thread.

110 comments
  • I used to be a very popular and successful collage artist (I'm now an illustrator, I like painting more), and my work has been copied by AI. However, I don't really care. In fact, I was musing once the idea of licensing everything under the CC-BY license. I don't mind if AI copies my stuff, because if eventually this democratizes art (as it has already), all the better. Yes, these AI belong to corporations, but if they're easy to access, or free to use, all the better. I want people to extend what I did, and remix it. I don't want to be remembered as me, as a singular artist, that somehow I emerged from the void. Because I didn't. EVERY artist is built on top of their predecessors, and all art is a remix. That's the truth that other artists don't wanna hear because it's all about their ego.

    • The issue isn't ego from any artists I've talked to. The issue is that most enjoy DOING their art for a living, and AI threatening their ability to make a living doing the thing they love, by actively taking their work and emulating it.

      Add to that, that no one seems to believe AI does a better job than a trained artist, and it also threatens to lower the quality bar at the top end.

      Personally I think that if AI is free to use and any work done by AI cannot be covered by copyright (due to being trained on people's art against their will), then I don't have an issue with it.

      • If society benefits from the democratization of art/books/etc then it's not a loss, it's a win for everyone. There were many jobs in the past that were lost because technology made them obsolete. Being a commissioned artist is one of these professions. However, there IS still going to be a SMALL niche for human-made original artworks (not made on ipads). But that'd be a niche. And no one stopping anyone from doing art, be it a profession or not. That's the beauty of art. If you were to be a plumber, and robots took your job, you'd have trouble to do it as a hobby, since it would require a lot of sinks and pipes to play around, and no one would care. But with art, you can do it on the cheap, and people STILL like your stuff, EVEN if they won't buy it anymore.

      • AI generated content cannot be copyrighted because it is not the product of creativity, but the product of generative computing.

        This article is about a lawsuit that sounds in unjust enrichment, not copyright. Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim, not a legal claim, and it's based on a situation in which one party is enriched at the expense of another, unjustly. If an AI company is taking content without permission, using it to train its model, and then profiting off its model without having paid or secured any license from the original artists, that seems pretty unjust to me.

        If you're at all interested in how the law is going to shake out on this stuff, this is a case to follow.

    • i USED to be an artist , not anymore 😢

      • Nobody stops you to be an artist. You can still have a job that is still alive today, AND be an artist in your own free time. As I mentioned, I was a very successful collage artist (NYTimes pick for best book cover, lots of commissions, lots of print sales etc). I decided to leave the surrealness of collage behind because I enjoyed children's illustrations more. Guess what, I don't make a dime with my illustrations. I've spent $15k on art supplies in 5 years and I made $1k back. But that doesn't stop me from painting nearly EVERY DAY. I share my work online, and whoever likes it, likes it. I don't expect sales anymore. Be it because it's not a popular look, or because of AI. It doesn't matter to me, I still paint daily.

    • But what about models built on content licensed under things like CC BY-SA?

      • Not an issue either, my copied works were fully copyrighted. I wanted them to be cc-by, but I never really relicenced them, too much work for 1500 works.

        • If a model is a derivative work of CC BY-SA works then the model has to be licensed under CC BY-SA as well.

You've viewed 110 comments.