Can someone explain again how an ML system scanning and training on a copyrighted work is different from a highly skilled artist doing the same?
There are artists that can study a painting for a few minutes and then recreate it from memory. There are artists who study a particular body of work so long that they can create more works indistinguishable in style. If an artist recreates a copyrighted work or creates a derivative too close to the original, then that new work is potentially copyright infringement.
That is, we focus on the output of the process to determine infringement with living artists and ignore the training. But with ML, everyone focuses on the training.
It seems an ML tool could add a filter to the output and refuse to output a work that too closely resembles one or more work under copyright. Isn't that basically what legitimate professional artists do as well?
Thousands of artists are capable of infringement, but we don't take away their brushes based on capability.
There are artists that can study a painting for a few minutes and then recreate it from memory. There are artists who study a particular body of work so long that they can create more works indistinguishable in style. If an artist recreates a copyrighted work or creates a derivative too close to the original, then that new work is potentially copyright infringement.
That is, we focus on the output of the process to determine infringement with living artists and ignore the training. But with ML, everyone focuses on the training.
It seems an ML tool could add a filter to the output and refuse to output a work that too closely resembles one or more work under copyright. Isn't that basically what legitimate professional artists do as well?
Thousands of artists are capable of infringement, but we don't take away their brushes based on capability.