Reid Southen is a successful concept artist who has worked for many of the biggest studios (Marvel, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Paramount etc) on a lot of huge films (Matrix Resurrections, The Hunger Games, Transformers, and Alien, among others).
Dec 23, 2023·edited Dec 23, 2023Liked by Gary Marcus
If one (or a company) wants to use an officially authentified work (article, book, piece of art, etc.), one has to ask permission to the copyright holder. Why the companies which are developing generative AI systems could not be obliged by the law to ask permission for using protected content that is inserted in their training data set ? Even if this content is transformed or reformulated when processed by the system. When a film script is written based on a book, the story may be deeply altered, but still permission of using the book must be granted. Maybe that is the regulation which is needed here. This kind of regulation would be consistent with the one concerning the transparency on training data and which is presently under discussion. In fact, it is basically an issue of transparency, if the AI developers are transparent and honest on their data, they will have to respect copyrights.
That’s the problem right now - there is no alternative. But your discussion of artist rights and corporate conduct in a copyright context is meaningless. AI works aren’t subject to copyright, nor are they made in an infringing manner. You have to understand the basic scope of copyright: it can’t be a matter of lines or formulas or patterns, etc. AI deconstructs and reconstructs exactly that way though - more on this on my sub stack where I try to break down these very complicated topics. And I’ve been doing them both for a long long time.
I don’t think you understand the issue if you have that response. There’s nothing to argue about - only to understand. It’s complicated but it is so crucial. And the courts, and the copyright office, have already found this. Why are you doubting it? You understand how a database is loaded don’t you?
hi, I’m gonna say this one more time. Deconstructing an image and loading a database is not copying. There is no legal protection attendant to it. The way AI copies is not the kind of copying copyright is about. legally, it’s just not copying In the sense of copyright and I’m not the one to argue with. It’s the law.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying or why you feel a need to merge anything? Just read what I said. I’ve simplified it as much as possible to show you everything has changed. if you have a direct question, just ask.
Great piece and always enjoy your perspective. You and Rob Terceck are really good at explaining both sides.
Julie, enjoy your perspective as well. Thank you.
If you think about it twenty years ago, the young mobile content industry was stuck until such tracking systems were introduced; thereafter every major media company adopted mobile media and the entire field grew rapidly.
YouTube went through a similar evolution about 15 years ago. When it first debuted, YouTube was confronted with hundreds of lawsuits from angry rights holders.
Then YouTube introduced Content ID, and thereby turned antagonists into supporters and allies. In the process, YouTube gained a unique data asset that is unrivaled in the world of online video. Content ID is one reason why YouTube reigns supreme today in the world of online video.
My thinking is that the first GenAI company that develops a reliable from of usage tracking and reporting will achieve something like YouTube’s success, by garnering the support of the major content companies, and thereby converting opponents into champions while at the same time distinguishing itself from a wide field of lookalike competitors. We have a company Plai Anywhere that we think can make can make everyone work togethr and happy to discuss with you. Happy Holidays and will be attending CES if you are going.
and as far as alternatives goes - Copyright has been around since the 1600s - there is no way the law is going to be able to cope with AI in a hurry - and esp. while it is ripping through society… trying to shut AI down won’t work either so ????
I truly wish you wouldn’t speculate on the nature of copyright, AI and corporate conduct. AI has nothing to do with copyright and the sooner everybody understands that the better because then we will encourage real protection, for artist works and AI, because right now it’s going to destroy Hollywood and let’s not duck that issue– but people are. And don’t waste time with copyright and AI. It’s just not a thing.
If one (or a company) wants to use an officially authentified work (article, book, piece of art, etc.), one has to ask permission to the copyright holder. Why the companies which are developing generative AI systems could not be obliged by the law to ask permission for using protected content that is inserted in their training data set ? Even if this content is transformed or reformulated when processed by the system. When a film script is written based on a book, the story may be deeply altered, but still permission of using the book must be granted. Maybe that is the regulation which is needed here. This kind of regulation would be consistent with the one concerning the transparency on training data and which is presently under discussion. In fact, it is basically an issue of transparency, if the AI developers are transparent and honest on their data, they will have to respect copyrights.
That’s the problem right now - there is no alternative. But your discussion of artist rights and corporate conduct in a copyright context is meaningless. AI works aren’t subject to copyright, nor are they made in an infringing manner. You have to understand the basic scope of copyright: it can’t be a matter of lines or formulas or patterns, etc. AI deconstructs and reconstructs exactly that way though - more on this on my sub stack where I try to break down these very complicated topics. And I’ve been doing them both for a long long time.
I don’t think you understand the issue if you have that response. There’s nothing to argue about - only to understand. It’s complicated but it is so crucial. And the courts, and the copyright office, have already found this. Why are you doubting it? You understand how a database is loaded don’t you?
hi, I’m gonna say this one more time. Deconstructing an image and loading a database is not copying. There is no legal protection attendant to it. The way AI copies is not the kind of copying copyright is about. legally, it’s just not copying In the sense of copyright and I’m not the one to argue with. It’s the law.
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying or why you feel a need to merge anything? Just read what I said. I’ve simplified it as much as possible to show you everything has changed. if you have a direct question, just ask.
Gary,
Great piece and always enjoy your perspective. You and Rob Terceck are really good at explaining both sides.
Julie, enjoy your perspective as well. Thank you.
If you think about it twenty years ago, the young mobile content industry was stuck until such tracking systems were introduced; thereafter every major media company adopted mobile media and the entire field grew rapidly.
YouTube went through a similar evolution about 15 years ago. When it first debuted, YouTube was confronted with hundreds of lawsuits from angry rights holders.
Then YouTube introduced Content ID, and thereby turned antagonists into supporters and allies. In the process, YouTube gained a unique data asset that is unrivaled in the world of online video. Content ID is one reason why YouTube reigns supreme today in the world of online video.
My thinking is that the first GenAI company that develops a reliable from of usage tracking and reporting will achieve something like YouTube’s success, by garnering the support of the major content companies, and thereby converting opponents into champions while at the same time distinguishing itself from a wide field of lookalike competitors. We have a company Plai Anywhere that we think can make can make everyone work togethr and happy to discuss with you. Happy Holidays and will be attending CES if you are going.
With Appreciation
Pete
and as far as alternatives goes - Copyright has been around since the 1600s - there is no way the law is going to be able to cope with AI in a hurry - and esp. while it is ripping through society… trying to shut AI down won’t work either so ????
I truly wish you wouldn’t speculate on the nature of copyright, AI and corporate conduct. AI has nothing to do with copyright and the sooner everybody understands that the better because then we will encourage real protection, for artist works and AI, because right now it’s going to destroy Hollywood and let’s not duck that issue– but people are. And don’t waste time with copyright and AI. It’s just not a thing.