Submitted by markhachman t3_10bddey in MachineLearning
becausecurious t1_j49ltox wrote
There is https://openai.com/blog/jukebox/, which does generate music from prompt, but the prompt is not as detailed ("Hip Hop, in the style of Kanye West") and I don't think there is an easy way to use it online.
itsnotlupus t1_j49o5sw wrote
Notably many of openAI's open-source projects, including jukebox, have a license that both disclaim any ownership of the generated works and forbid commercial use, which should largely sidestep potentially thorny copyright questions.
HaMMeReD t1_j49sktf wrote
Nope, from terms of use regarding ai output.
OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output.
Besides, they have commercial apis, paid plans etc. Obviously they endorse commercial use.
zaptrem t1_j4a4bhl wrote
Jukebox license is different from the one you're thinking of.
HaMMeReD t1_j4a6edc wrote
Not really. Attribution only, no other restrictions.
zaptrem t1_j4a6k1f wrote
>No portion of the Software, nor any content created with the Software, may be used for commercial purposes.
HaMMeReD t1_j4a7i5q wrote
ah it does say that, and noncommercial license at the top as well.
Doesn't matter much, you can't realistically use it anyways.
The source is there, but I don't think it's a pre-trained model, and it sounds really slow (like a second of audio will be like an hour of processing). It'd probably cost less to commission a real musician.
marr75 t1_j4a5pv3 wrote
Copyright is not a big obstacle for generative AI. Research Author's Guild vs Google.
Ronny_Jotten t1_j4b1bln wrote
Copyright is an enormous issue for AI models - did you not read the post? [Oops, I meant this post.] Have you not heard everyone talking about it lately? The Google case is irrelevant to this question. It was decided that Google building a search database of books was fair use, and didn't have an adverse economic impact on the books' authors - on the contrary, it boosted sales.
Had Google built an AI trained on the books' content, and then generated books for sale, it would have been a different outcome.
marr75 t1_j4cuv4t wrote
I read the 30 word OP here and the jukebox blog post and have read multiple analyses of AGI vs Google. The best I can guess, you're referring to the jukebox post, which only references IP in the sentence:
> As generative modeling across various domains continues to advance, we are also conducting research into issues like bias and intellectual property rights
So, I question if you know what discussion you're replying in, if you yourself read the post, or if I'm just so confused I can't believe my own reading comprehension anymore (which could happen any day now).
The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models. There are no guarantees when it comes to credible legal theories and the winds can shift after a Supreme Court decision or two, but that's the state of the art today.
Ronny_Jotten t1_j4d824g wrote
You're right, sorry, I had several tabs open on a similar subject... the post I was referring to is this:
> The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models.
The US four-part fair use test was established long before AGI v. Google: in the 19th century in Folsom v. Marsh. It was encoded into copyright law in 1976. It's applicable to everything.
The case only decided that Google's specific book service did in fact pass the test. The most important aspect is that the judge found that there was no economic damage to the book authors, that it did not replace the books or negatively impact the market for books.
The decision is not applicable to other projects that may be substantially different in character. I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers are hoping that DALL-E will be considered to be equivalent to Google's book search - that they have fair use rights to digitize copyrighted material without permission, and publish something transformed that only contains "snippets" of it. But they will have to get around the fourth factor. Who will commission an expensive original artwork from Greg Rutkowski, when they can simply type a prompt including "in the style of..." and get something substantially similar, for less than a nickel? Will companies use GPL3 code in their products, when they can get a mashed-up facsimile with the restrictive license removed? The question of fair use in the context of generative neural networks is far from settled; hence the lawsuits in the (other) post.
marr75 t1_j4da0ub wrote
Sure, there will probably be plenty of litigation in the next few years. I find it probable that these suits fail. Sorry for my imprecision on the origin and application of the four-part test. I think we'll just hold our same opinions on the matter coming out so I don't really care enough about this debate to formulate my sentences that carefully or continue.
fimari t1_j4d2p69 wrote
Copyright at this point is largely obsolete as a tool to protect creativity.
Ronny_Jotten t1_j4b1q88 wrote
Non-commercial use doesn't give you a pass on copyright infringement. It's just that the punishment is less severe. You can't freely share your music and movie libraries on Bittorrent. You can still get cease and desist orders, DMCA takedown notices, fines, loss of Internet, etc. (depending where you live).
elsee t1_j4a4ljs wrote
I find it hilarious jukebox trained on a fuckton of copyrighted shit and now OpenAI points the finger at the potential users.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments