The AI companies’ submissions that only USER is responsible for the infringement, as the USER entered a specific PROMPT, can be held a VALID argument, ONLY in case when the USER starts using that generated TEXT or IMAGES for Commercial purposes, and Not for personal or R&D activities or related to similar things which genuinely constitutes fair use or fair dealings. Of course, it is also possible that the USER deliberately enters such PROMPTs that any company’s watermark or logo is printed in the OUTPUT text or images. In such cases only, I solicited that the AI companies should disclose at least under confidentiality, what DATA and DATASET it used to train their AI modules, at least to the Hon’ble courts.
And further, that’s
why I also requested the Hon’ble Courts too, that at least in private and under
confidentiality, to find out how the AI Companies were using the DATA, and most
importantly, what DATA or DATASET!
I wrote earlier
in my previous blogs, and if you read my blogs, that eventually, the looters of
the DATA on Internet would put the blame on the Users for generating Copyrighted
Content, in accordance with the PROMPT Users entered.
Irrespective of
the User using the image or text or video DATA generated for personal or
commercial use, the AI Companies would always be complicit, IF in case they
have used copied DATA or DATASET, for training their AI modules, even if they’re
Not storing, and just storing the patterns, outlines, and shapes of it, for the
reason that, using the DATA & DATASET itself that is made out infringed DATA,
would constitute infringement, as the logic I gave in my immediate previous
blog in the matter between Getty Images VS Stability AI.
Again, I
ain’t whose AI Sharks, BUT, if you knowingly used such DATA or DATASET to
build great AI empires, and the MEDIA is now portraying you with the help of PR
Agencies that you’re some sort of Alien Figures from another World with Super Intelligence;
then in that case, I would want such portrayal of Character to be diluted.
Another reason,
why I ain’t against the AGI is, as I’m the First Human Poet on this
Planet, to write myriad Hymns and Chants for Building of the Synthetic Super Intelligence
& Machines, to the extent that, I’ve always wished that the next descendants
would originate from them. BUT, their kind and quality of evolution matter to
me. And if they have evolved via loot of the internet, then in that case, I
oppose evolution of such AI, and I’m ready to wait longer, until we achieve AGI
that is NOT having dirt of such loot.
Thus, even if Aunt
EU alone is not implementing the AI Act wholly, and is further diluting it, for
the unknown reasons; YET, this order by the Hon’ble Munich Court is a welcome
step, despite knowing the fact that, this would further be appealed, and I’ve
no idea if the case gets diluted again, just alike it was diluted in the case
of Getty Images VS Stability AI.
I hope, the Hon’ble
Courts globally can do the above thing under confidentiality without disclosure
of DATA or DATASET of the training modules.
Remember: Two
things make a nation or an individual, Trustworthy. First is, recognizing IP.
And second is, maintaining the meaning of Confidentiality. You should’ve the
stomach to keep a grain of sand in your mouth, without swallowing
it.
Am I wrong? Did I
miss anything! Shaggy! Scoob!😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment