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 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."
... and Deviant Art? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DeviantArt is a gangrene-infected clogged toilet overflowing with filth and diseased maggots.
I wouldn't send rats into that fuckin' place without hazmat suits and a truck full of antibiotics and paramedics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:... and Deviant Art? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was curious too, apparently they have their own AI tool so users of the site are alleging DA used their art for that.
https://www.deviantart.com/dre... [deviantart.com]
A bit more detail about DA specfically is here.
DeviantArt and Midjourney deny wrongdoing in copyright infringement lawsuit over in AI image generators [theartnewspaper.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Has the name been appropriated and repurposed for some AI venture?
No, but you can be sure it's being used to "create" its own work [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The author reeks of ego and ignorance.
First off, you're not "a creative". You may be skilled at something or another, but pretending that having a skill makes you "a creative" - and by implication, those without said skill are "uncreative" - is the height of egotism.
Secondly, OpenAI has no obligation to do anything for you. . They have a fair use right, just like everyone else (Google, etc) to automated processing of copyrighted data to produce transformative goods and services. They are doing you a court
Re: Good! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Good! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
'I mean, OH MY GOD, they "puts the burden on creators to protect their work".'
Yeah, that's exactly what intellectual property laws do too. The burden is ALWAYS ON YOU to protect your work.
'You didn't have "valuables stolen from you". '
No, they didn't. If they did, they'd have a court case. Instead, they litigate in the court of public opinion...because they don't have a legal argument.
I would love for this guy to get sued for defamation.
I mean, AI companies have a lot money, so I'm entitled to be given s
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
For patents, you have to register them.
For Trademarks, you have to register and actively protect them.
But for Copyright, you get that automatically. In the US, you have to register it before you take legal action, but you can do that after the infringement takes place.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only been that way since 1988. And it was a bad change.
If you register after infringement, you're not eligible for statutory damages, only actual damages. Statutory damages are huge, so you miss out on a huge deterrent. You also lose out on various evidentiary proofs that you could use in court, and have weaker evidence of taking your rights seriously and being proactive about protecting them.
The Berne Convention's change to automatic copyright was designed to make it easier on creators by avoiding
Re: (Score:2)
ED: The US joined in 1989, not 1988.
Re: (Score:3)
So artists aren't creative? They just have a skill? Like brick laying is a skill but not an art? Are you trolling with that shit?
As far as the legality is concerned, since no court I'm aware of has ruled in any AI copyright case we do not know if what they are doing is illegal or not.
It is simply, flat out dead wrong to say it is or is not. You can have an opinion on it but you can not make a factual statement. If you could then none of these articles would have been written as the issue would have alr
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what I wrote. I wrote that declaring artists to be "creatives" and those who aren't artists, by implication, non-creative, is profoundly egotistical. Some artists may be particularly creative. Some non-artists may be particularly creative. And likewise for non-creative people. being an artist only means that you have a skill at that art, not that you excel at creativity.
This article talks about the Authors Guild suit. You know, protecting all of those great "crea
Re: (Score:2)
Your feelings about how copyright works are irrelevant. It is a fact that copyright is automatic. Story ends there.
You can have whatever opinion you want about an ongoing case. Also irrelevant. Let us know when there's a case that's been settled and appeals exhausted.
It was a nice effort but you still don't know what you're talking about. Stop. Just stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Well its both and a brick layer can be creative too.If an artist draws a picture of a someone or a scene the majority of that is just copying and the skill of rendering that image. If a brick layer can be creative to as soon as you give them any leeway to make their own decisions, having natural stones and picking which ones fit.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com] that takes skill and an eye, for what looks good, no 2 are exactly alike, why isn't that creative?
You can be creative walking down the street, choo
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a different path is creative? Uh ok whatever. That's not what the word means. Enjoy your evening.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a fair use right, just like everyone else (Google, etc) to automated processing of copyrighted data to produce transformative goods and services.
I believe this is yet to be decided in court. In the US, there aren't any strict tests for whether or not something counts as fair use. OpenAI's use may meet some criteria for fair use but fail others (it would certainly fail the non-commercial criteria), so it would be up to the judge and jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Given Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.'s determination that Google Books, quoting text verbatim from books that were scanned in their entirity against authors' explicit requests, is deemed as transformative and fair use, I see no world in which what OpenAI is doing isn't.
Oh Please (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Oh Please (Score:4, Funny)
It's not Mad Max. It's the Max Headroom universe we're headed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, buy a wig. You'll need one soon enough at the rate things are going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh Please (Score:2)
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
Obligatory Futurama (Score:3)
"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."
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh, please post a list of your original works and creations.
The people most opposed to copyright protection are the ones least likely to ever need it in their lifetime because they've never done anything worthy of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are completely different from copyright.
What great social ill has been caused by preventing anyone from using Mickey Mouse in their own work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC missed point, of course.
I think front door locks are horrible for society. They make everyone paranoid and feel like their neighbors are out to get them. We should not allow front door locks. Oh, and I'm also a house burglar.
Did that help?
Fixed That For You (Score:1)
OpenAI's foundational models "are, and have always been, built atop the theft of the work of others."
Re: (Score:1)
You mean xAI's models. Theft of the work of others is really Elon's thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Fixed That For You (Score:2)
You're an idiot. Stop using unprovable claims that there is "secret hidden knowledge waiting to be discovered" in these places, because there probably isn't. Just stop trashing them because we all live on the same planet, not because of some hypothetical magical unobtanium-based cure for a disease or condition that scares people. What will you do when people call you out on the cure not being found in ten years?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
how intelligent is greed and exploitation (Score:1)
corrupt classist corporations will produce corrupt classist AI
make no mistake, this is evil and will end badly, greed always does
Re: (Score:2)
gotta love the moderation around here, sure sign of being correct when someone mods me down
Naturally, that leads to this. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Plagiarism is not illegal, unless it also comprises a violation of copyright, trademark, or patent rights.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Theft is the Default (Score:2)
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").
Well, why didn't you say so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The law is standing in the way of making profit, so let's just ignore the law.
Last gasp of a dying industry (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Hard truth = this is pointless (Score:1)
Massive Copyright Infringement (Score:2)
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.
Jesus Wept: data collection routines edition (Score:2)
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