A.I. Versus The Law
Watch my next video on Dumb Robot Lawyers a week EARLY on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/RobotLawyerBad
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
Send me an email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! https://legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! https://legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
Tik Tok: https://legaleagle.link/tiktok
Please email my agent & manager at email@example.com
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (https://pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
🤖 Who do you think will win the AI wars?
⭐ Get 20% OFF Nebula with your favorite creators! https://legaleagle.link/nebula
Dude with all due respect I’ve been a a fan of yours since 2019 but as an artist you’ve lost me on this one. Artists DO have ownership over their style!
AI will happen. It will do everything. That is like an inevitability, but it doesn’t have to be made w/o like any ethics, regulations, or discussions. Stable Diffusion’s staff also have like this huge bone to pick with artists in general based on several posts. They’re super sus
Corporations always win.
The person or persons making the AI available for direct usage to the public would be ultimately responsible for all actions the AI would take. Likely a large chain of workers not ending with the AI company’s CEO , even going to the hosting domain , the original programmers and beyond. Anyone who made it possible would be guilty of the same charges .This is based on mob laws and what I’ve seen regarding racketeering . The AI is neither but everything needs basis.
Using the internet to “educate” a computer so that it can create its own art shouldn’t be an issue. If so, then how do we stop humans from observing famous art and eventually becoming an artist themselves.
There’s a Star Trek Voyager episode called “Author, Author” dedicated to this topic, and it involves a trial setting! Since you had fun going over “Measure of a Man”, it might be worth exploring for a future episode.
He already covered “Measures of a Man” from “ST.NGN” I found it lacking.
Tbf, data can actually genuinely learn. Which is something modern “ai’s” cannot.
Man I miss when Voyager felt like the shallow Star Trek, when compared to what’s on the air now it’s fixing Shakespeare.
Thinking about this episode depresses me because I would have imagined by 237X we would have advanced past the need for primitive legal fictions such as intellectual property.
I believe he has done an episode that lawyered ‘Measure of a man’. But it was more about the process.
It’d be interesting to hear your take on AI generation of voices and copyright. Right now many companies are trying to get voice actors to train AI voices to be used in perpetuity to use however they see fit. More commonly, they’re slipping in clauses in contracts to use voice actors’ likeness for future work so they don’t have to call voice actors into the recording studio anymore. We’re trying to fight back but the big companies that use this won’t amend their contracts to remove the clause, leaving voice actors in a hard place of either staying and lose out on future work or walk and lose those particular jobs. We’re definitely going to have to adapt to this change in the industry but we don’t want to be replaced.
@Ncyphen Under US law a person does not have full ownership over their likeness. Celebrities keep getting in trouble for posting pictures of themselves on their Instagram or whatever. You do not own your actual face, let alone a virtually generated (or drawn) version of your face.
I think we’re going to see a bunch of defamation lawsuits instead, especially for things like deepfake porn
@Ncyphen that’s kind of what I was getting at. After all, why define a character through a real life person, when the character should stand on their own merits?
Just that sometimes, when I read comics and see a grizzled badass, I think of Liam O’Brien thanks to his voice as characters like Yasuo or Illidan.
@Ilyak1986 I never said anything about a VA modulating their own voice. I was referring to people who take an actor’s voice without consent and run it through an AI to speak parts the original actor never recorded themselves. That’s identity theft, they’re stealing a person’s voice.
I just had a thought though, if we take the example of AI art, and it analyzes thousands upon thousands of voices to create an entirely new voice . . . I would actually consider that trassformative and legal.
@G T nothing is being stolen it’s been looked at and learnt from so most AI are changing and are removing the copyright content so they are will be able to learn from its own images
@Ncyphen isn’t it the mark of a good voice actor/actress if they can hide the identity of their voice, assuming they voiced hundreds of different characters? So, in which way is it identity theft if a voice actor modulates his/her own voice to imitate a completely different character?
The laws are gonna need to be clarified and redefined because this is gonna get very complicated very soon.
@Emish Vortexus If banning ai from training is analogous to banning humans from looking at other art, shouldn’t A.I be granted copyright of the art it’s produced? It’s weird that in one sense when it comes to training, we’re willing say to that it has just as many rights as a human does when it comes to inspiration. Basically saying that by prohibiting it from training, we’re essentially saying that we are doing the same thing to humans. Yet when it comes to owning the art it produces, we say it can’t because it’s not human.
@Luke Perrett you do realize that AI art isn’t just images the AI is throwing out independently of human interaction? A human needs to tell the AI what Image to produce how is that not intent.
The key thing which is not being mentioned here is artistic intent. AI (or animals) can’t have artistic intent so it’s pretty clear what they produce isn’t really even art. It’s not as hard as what I think some people want it to be.
I hope that scientists could invent a definition that describes a distance between two pieces of art that the courts found useful. With this, there could be a more standardized way of communicating about the modification of an data set of images to a AI generated piece image.
@Shandrakor I doubt they will even be able to rationalize that the way AI is trained on artwork is almost identical to the process that happens in the human brain whenever a person sees anything, if training AI on copyrighted works is infringement then any human artist looking at any copyrighted works is also infringement since it’s basically the same process.
When it comes to scraping data for datasets, illicitly or otherwise, nobody holds a candle to the insurance industry. I would be surprised if they didn’t have something to say about the general concept, if not this particular use case.
What kind of data do they scrape? I can’t imagine much use for scraping copyrighted stuff.
It’s hilarious that “only people can own a copyright”… but also corporations, because we’re always willing to treat them like people when it benefits them and their shareholders.
@Saman kucher The big legal question is about corporations and other non-individual legal entities that have no human owner. For example foundations set up by groups of people who are long dead and gone. Problem is whose actual status as living human individuals form a reasonable legal basis for the current actions of such organizations, especially when acting far beyond the written instructions of the various human founders. This would differ from ordinary memorial foundations that faithfully execute the terms of the founders last will and testimony, for example to pay out the proceeds of specific investments as scholarships according to specified selection criteria.
@CruelSculpture ……….. What?? 🤔
I mean… corporations are run by (drumroll) people. :/
corporations can also be taken to court because they are made of people.
So can organizations that are not corporate entities, Free Software Foundation holds copyright over the code they wrote and it cannot be taken unless you properly follow the licensing.
I really think that many AI legal issues will have to be solved through the passage of new laws rather than interpretation of existing laws. The laws we have were simply not made with AI in mind.
Are you talking about asking those fossils who don’t even know what facebook is to figure out new laws about AI?
Lawyers: “A robot working as a lawyer? that is dumb”
Also Lawyers: “If you dare to use that robot lawyer, you will get jail time”
I have thought of a story where a robot who wants to be a lawyer having to represent a robot that wants to be a doctor
This is actually very interesting to me
detroit become human vibes
Excellent video. Though I was hoping you might go into the right of publicity arguments in that American case, I thought that was actually one of their better arguments.
By the by, it’s been found that the LAION-3 training set includes imagery illegal in some jurisdictions and/or private and personal (nonconsensual imagery, terrorist propaganda, private medical photos). What do you think the legal implications of that might be?
That’s especially concerning if it’s confidential information , like anything to do with medical records.
Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and Dall-E all have some set of input and output filters to try to avoid “upsetting” output. But it’s still a bit of a whack-a-mole situation, where any innocent prompt you give might give rise to porn or gore in the output.