I feel like this changes nothing. All they did was apply another algorithm to the copyrighted work before feeding it to the AI.
That algorithm masks the original work so it looks different to the human eye, but the AI still gets what it needs from it, and it still needs the real picture, made by a human who didn’t get credit.

That’s not how any of this works. Copyright is a legal concept, not a technological one. You can’t strip the copyright off something by deleting part of it; the result is still a derivative work.

“I only took a bite out of the bread, therefore I didnt eat any bread.”

Did the image get copied onto their servers in a manner they were not provided a legal right to? Then they violated copyright. Whatever they do after that isn’t the copyright violation.

And this is obvious because they could easily assemble a dataset with no copyright issues. They could also attempt to get permission from the copyright holders for many other images, but that would be hard and/or costly and some would refuse. They want to use the extra images, but don’t want to get permission, so they just take it, just like anyone else who would like an image but doesn’t want to pay for it.

All this really does is show how flawed the current concept of copyright is. But at some point, a huge corpus of images owned by other people was assembled to create a derivative work (the training corpus).

Shows how useless those “image poisoning” services some artists boast about really are

Doesn’t this just do what gets done through convolution anyway?

What’s the point of this.

I love how copyrights are such a consistent constant hurdle for any new developments are are turning everything they touch into shit.

deleted by creator