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

Permanently Deleted

If letting AI train on other people's works is unjust enrichment then what the record lables did to creatives through the entire 20th century taking ownership of their work through coercive contracting is extra-unjust enrichment.

Not saying it isn't, but it's not new, and bothersome that we're only complaining a lot now.

It seems like it's only copyright infringement when poor people take rich people's stuff.

When it's the other way round, it's fair use.

Ok, dumb question time. I'm assuming no one has any significant issues, legal or otherwise, with a person studying all Van Gogh paintings, learning how to reproduce them, and using that knowledge to create new, derivative works and even selling them.

But when this is done with software, it seems wrong. I can't quite articulate why though. Is it because it takes much less effort? Anyone can press a button and do something that would presumably take the person from the example above years or decades to do? What if the person was somehow super talented and could do it in a week or a day?

Good for this guy. Fuck AI and the companies responsible.

Copying is not theft. Letting only massive and notoriously untransparent corporations control an emerging technology is.

I don't think it is relatively difficult to make "Ethical" AI.

Simply refer to the sources you used and make everything, from the data used, the models and the weights, of public domain.

It baffles me as to why they don't, wouldn't it just be much simpler?

Have you or a friend used YouTube or reddit in the past 10 years? Then you're entitled to compensation for the training of AI.

No, AI does not create new derivative transformative works. Copyright law is very clear that the thing that is copyrightable is that modicum of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium of expression, that society must encourage and protect.

Derivative works need even more creativity to be protectable than original works because it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, transformative, even though the original may still be very recognizable.

An AI system does not have creativity. At best, it could mimic someone who is creative, but it could never have creativity on its own. It is generative, not creative.

It's like that monkey that took a nice picture, but the picture was not copyrightable because the person seeking to enforce the copyright didn't create the work. It's creativity that the Constitution seeks to encourage by the copyright clause.

As much as I hate google, they're not wrong

AI aint going away, it's already commonly running and on local machines, and being used covertly.

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me a symmetry breaker between AI training on existing media and humans creating media from what they've seen, such that one is theft and the other is not.

Lmao, cope harder. You're being replaced like the rest of us 🤣

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.

Another rent eeeker trying to hold back human progress for personal greed, they're super common.