this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
564 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
2934 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

This is actually pretty cool for small artists, but how would it handle things like iFunny and such adding watermarks to shit they don't own in the first place?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (7 children)

cool for small artists

It's certainly very bad for small artists. Can I ask why you think it would be good?

To answer why it is bad for small artists: Money for license fees will mainly go to major content owners like Getty, or Disney. Small artists will have to go through platforms like Shutterstock or Adobe, which will keep most of the fees. At the same time, AI tools like generative fill are becoming ever more important. Such licensing regimes make artists' tools more expensive. Major corporations will be able to extract more value.

Look at Adobe. It has a reputation for abusing its monopoly against small artists, right? Yet Adobe pays license fees for images on its platform, that it used for training its AI tools. Adobe has also created a provenance standard, such as this bill wants to make mandatory. This bill would make Adobe's preferred business model the mandatory standard by law.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

Disney won't sell licenses.

They'll keep their monopoly on 95% of the training data on the market for entertainment content, so they can accelerate their workflows using those tools, and everyone else is now trying to compete with their giant wallet and their extra tooling you're not allowed to compete with.

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nah. They will cross licence with the other big players effectively closing the market to anyone they don't bless.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

They already own all the big players.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)