Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI The Media

OpenAI's 'Media Manager' Mocked, Amid Accusations of Robbing Creative Professionals (yahoo.com) 63

OpenAI's 'Media Manager' Mocked, Amid Accusations of Robbing Creative Professionals "Amid the hype surrounding Apple's new deal with OpenAI, one issue has been largely papered over," argues the Executive Director of America's writer's advocacy group, the Authors Guild.

OpenAI's foundational models "are, and have always been, built atop the theft of creative professionals' work." [L]ast month the company quietly announced Media Manager, scheduled for release in 2025. A tool purportedly designed to allow creators and content owners to control how their work is used, Media Manager is really a shameless attempt to evade responsibility for the theft of artists' intellectual property that OpenAI is already profiting from.

OpenAI says this tool would allow creators to identify their work and choose whether to exclude it from AI training processes. But this does nothing to address the fact that the company built its foundational models using authors' and other creators' works without consent, compensation or control over how OpenAI users will be able to imitate the artists' styles to create new works. As it's described, Media Manager puts the burden on creators to protect their work and fails to address the company's past legal and ethical transgressions. This overture is like having your valuables stolen from your home and then hearing the thief say, "Don't worry, I'll give you a chance to opt out of future burglaries ... next year...."

AI companies often argue that it would be impossible for them to license all the content that they need and that doing so would bring progress to a grinding halt. This is simply untrue. OpenAI has signed a succession of licensing agreements with publishers large and small. While the exact terms of these agreements are rarely released to the public, the compensation estimates pale in comparison with the vast outlays for computing power and energy that the company readily spends. Payments to authors would have minimal effects on AI companies' war chests, but receiving royalties for AI training use would be a meaningful new revenue stream for a profession that's already suffering...

We cannot trust tech companies that swear their innovations are so important that they do not need to pay for one of the main ingredients — other people's creative works. The "better future" we are being sold by OpenAI and others is, in fact, a dystopia. It's time for creative professionals to stand together, demand what we are owed and determine our own futures.

The Authors Guild (and 17 other plaintiffs) are now in an ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. And the Guild's executive director also notes that there's also "a class action filed by visual artists against Stability AI, Runway AI, Midjourney and Deviant Art, a lawsuit by music publishers against Anthropic for infringement of song lyrics, and suits in the U.S. and U.K. brought by Getty Images against Stability AI for copyright infringement of photographs."

They conclude that "The best chance for the wider community of artists is to band together."

OpenAI's 'Media Manager' Mocked, Amid Accusations of Robbing Creative Professionals

Comments Filter:
  • I haven't thought much about that site in 15-20 years... but, in the past, it was a place where people posted their own artwork. Has the name been appropriated and repurposed for some AI venture?

  • Oh Please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Sunday June 23, 2024 @03:26PM (#64571853)

    Surely at this late date, it is clear to even the most stubborn skeptic that Big Tech's ultimate purpose is to shut off every "revenue stream" for individuals?

    They've bought up and locked down resumes, dating, payment processors, email, images, video, the web, books, comics, blogs, discussion groups, classified ads, journalism, mobile apps, animation and games.

    You can't get a job. You can't start a business. Hell you can't even talk to anyone online without fear of being blocked and banned. How the fuck are you going to make a living if you can't even TALK to anyone?

    So spare us the stories about "new revenue streams."

    • That doesn't make "Big Tech" any different from any other huge corporation. It's what happens when there are no (enforced) antitrust laws.
    • They've bought up and locked down resumes, dating, payment processors, email, images, video, the web, books, comics, blogs, discussion groups, classified ads, journalism, mobile apps, animation and games.

      I want to say you need to get out of the house more.

      But why do I have the sneaking suspicion that whatever particular dreams you can't realize in any of the above categories also wouldn't fly in a small town, to paraphrase a song.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      They've bought up and locked down resumes, dating, payment processors, email, images, video, the web, books, comics, blogs, discussion groups, classified ads, journalism, mobile apps, animation and games.

      "Bought up", yes. "Locked down", no.

      Outside of NK/Iran or some other shithole you can do every single one of the things above without being "locked down" by anybody. Shit, even Apple's "walled garden" allows all of the above except maybe "payment processors". How paranoid are you?

      You can't get a job. You can't start a business. Hell you can't even talk to anyone online without fear of being blocked and banned. How the fuck are you going to make a living if you can't even TALK to anyone?

      So spare us the stories about "new revenue streams."

      Again, wtf? I have done all of those things online without being blocked or banned except in the most extreme cases like deliberately trolling Reddit users.

      I have an alternative theory. YOU are being blocked and YOU can't get a job

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday June 23, 2024 @03:31PM (#64571881)

    "You can't shut us down. The Internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. We've done nothing wrong."

  • OpenAI's foundational models "are, and have always been, built atop the theft of the work of others."

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      You mean xAI's models. Theft of the work of others is really Elon's thing.

    • How is AI ever going to cure cancer if they can't train their models on all the random bullshit that makes up the internet? You aren't seeing the big picture here, luddites!

      Sarcasm, obviously. When someone claims that their technology is going to cure cancer or some other fantastical "medical discovery", it's likely bullshit. Previously the cure for cancer was hidden in the Amazon rain forests, then the deep ocean, and probably a dozen other places or things that some special interest wants to protect but c

      • The argument drives me nuts.

        "often argue that it would be impossible for them to license all the content that they need and that doing so would bring progress to a grinding halt."

        You know, my ambition to play the sickest leadbreaks ever heard by mankind is impaired by my ability to own eddie van halens personal modded 5010 amp. But I doubt a judge would look too kindly on that argument if I was caught boosting it from his estate.

  • corrupt classist corporations will produce corrupt classist AI

    make no mistake, this is evil and will end badly, greed always does

    • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

      gotta love the moderation around here, sure sign of being correct when someone mods me down

  • And of course, those same authors NEVER read another author's book and learned how to craft narratives and dialog from those same books.

    Nope. Never. Not even once. I'm positive they never read a book or an article before writing their own works.

    What f**king hypocrites.
    • But if they rewrite someone else's works just by changing word choices and making paraphrases it is still plagiarism. "Generative AI" is a more sophisticated system to do that.

      • Plagiarism is not illegal, unless it also comprises a violation of copyright, trademark, or patent rights.

    • And of course, those same authors NEVER read another author's book and learned how to craft narratives and dialog from those same books.

      Well... The majority of those authors don't go around declaring that they shouldn't have to pay for their source material while making billions of dollars.

  • OpenAI says this tool would allow creators to identify their work and choose whether to exclude it from AI training processes.

    Sounds much like some the less friendly implementations of website's obligation to allow you not to be tracked. It is up to you to figure how to use their tool to fence off your work and prevent it from being copied by the mimic-bots ("generative AI").

  • "AI companies often argue that it would be impossible for them to license all the content that they need..."and suddenly copyright was no longer a thing.
  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Sunday June 23, 2024 @09:49PM (#64572449)

    In the US copyright regimes protect only the reproduction or public performances of works and their derivatives.

    Copyright holders have no right to tell anyone else what they can't or can't do or how others may or may not profit profit from their works beyond making copies and performances. Copyright regimes are not exclusive grants to information, "styles" or anything beyond the works themselves.

    I do not support expansions of copyright regimes to grant rights holders the ability to control how their works may be used by others. Neither do I support patenting styles. This would be a disaster.

    • This is not the last gasp of a dying industry.

      Sufficiently rich, well connected companies will get a free pass. You are one of the little people, you will not.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Some would argue that AI is just an elaborate copy making machine. In some cases it reproduces the original with fairly high fidelity, and in others it clearly rips off the composition and other copyrightable elements.

      Keep in mind that this isn't just limited to US copyright law either, people can be sued in Europe and other places where the rules are different.

      Here's an example of someone making a painting that is very similar to a photograph, and losing a copyright claim against them: https://www.zhangjin [zhangjingna.com]

  • Did AI companies cheat, steal and lie to create their models? Sure. Are they going to be stopped by anyone? No chance in Hell. It's not about those companies and certainly isn't about those artists and authors, it's about AI supremacy and the chance that China, Iran etc. get better AI faster or eventually get to an AGI. No politician in the US is ever going to vote for slowing down AI or creating a legal nightmare for those companies to live in. You think China will be putting a similar law in place? Or ev
  • AI companies often argue that it would be impossible for them to license all the content that they need...

    This should be the opening statement in all lawsuits against AI companies. AI companies admit they engage in massive copyright infringement. Penalties should start in the billions.

  • So, OpenAI provided a means for creators to list out their creations for them? How would this not just become a treasure-trove for the profit-first company at some point. They will have the data, and if it points to valid sources, they'll absolutely, 100%, use it.

    Trust is completely removed from the picture when it comes to these profit-first entities. Fuck them sideways with a rusted up chainsaw. This has "nope" written all over it. I say that as both a creator and a consumer of creative work. These compan

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil

Working...