The AI thread

[BrianShaw]

Perhaps what is needed is a legal concept like "Artificial Intelligence Personhood"? Just in case they go rogue and start self-creating other AIs...

[jnantz]

ai is a tool. Nikon does not own the copyright to images created with a nikon camera. Microsoft does not own the copyright to works created using word.

but they should! just like grammerly already does ( or will ), and META owns all the content posted on it's sites..

[Pieter]

but they should! just like grammerly already does ( or will ), and META owns all the content posted on it's sites..

META does not own the content, but they can use it as they see fit.

[BrianShaw]

META does not own the content, but they can use it as they see fit.

You retain ownership of the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and other Meta Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.
However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.

Somewhat like this forum?

By submitting materials to this site, you you are representing that are you are the owner, or are authorized by the owner to do so. As a consequence, all the material posted in this site is assumed copyrighted by their respective authors, and shouldn't be reproduced without permission and proper credit by any means, including framing. The site doesn't claim copyright to any material submitted by readers. However, by submitting materials to this site, you grant an irrevocable royalty-free license to the maintainers of this site to publish that material on the largeformatphotography.info site.

[jnantz]

META does not own the content, but they can use it as they see fit.

they own it enough that you can't delete it, ever, just like web forums, it's there and if the site owner/s refuse to remove one's "content"
because you might not want it affiliated with hateful and bigoted ideologies &c that might not have been there when one clicked on the "user agreement"
they can keep your content up and make it seem like you are still there posting away and playing "maffia wars" and "FarmVille", or use your likeness and words and advertise to your "friends and connections"
... the thing is that META and other websites that have that clause that they can do as they want with one's words ideas &c is that it is a 2 way street and if they shirk their responsibilities that they clearly state
that they will keep community values (whatever that means) , moderate hate and intolerance away, keep bullies from being bullies, keep it a family site &c they shouldn't get the right to retain anyone's words ..
but I guess there are loopholes big enough to drive a bulldozer through ( being licensed and hosted off shore in freedonia, and the "free speech" and we're not publishers BS) and of course site owners and their governing boards do whatever they want because they are
the new untouchables ... I haven't logged in to Meta in 10 years, "deleted" my account but I know it's still there and Im still advertising crest toothpaste and some restaurant I would never go to.

[Pieter]

they own it enough that you can't delete it, ever, just like web forums, it's there and if the site owner/s refuse to remove one's "content"
because you might not want it affiliated with hateful and bigoted ideologies &c that might not have been there when one clicked on the "user agreement"
they can keep your content up and make it seem like you are still there posting away and playing "maffia wars" and "FarmVille", or use your likeness and advertise to your "friends and connections"
... the thing is that META and other websites that have that clause that they can do as they want with one's words ideas &c is that it is a 2 way street and if they shirk their responsibilities that they clearly state
that they will keep community values (whatever that means) , moderate hate and intolerance away, keep bullies from being bullies, keep it a family site &c they shouldn't get the right to retain anyone's words ..
but I guess there are loopholes big enough to drive a bulldozer through ( being licensed and hosted off shore in freedonia, and the "free speech" and we're not publishers BS) and of course site owners and their governing boards do whatever they want because they are
the new untouchables ... I haven't logged in to Meta in 10 years, "deleted" my account but I know it's still there and Im still advertising crest toothpaste and some restaurant I would never go to.

And every image you have ever posted here or on any other site, plus anything you have ever written on forums or social media, is being "scraped," used to train AI to make versimilitudes of human creations.

[rdenney]

All: nobody likes having what’s important to them defined away. Let’s keep it respectful: about the topic and not the person.

Rick “thank you” Denney

[paulbarden]

And every image you have ever posted here or on any other site, plus anything you have ever written on forums or social media, is being "scraped," used to train AI to make versimilitudes of human creations.

I know for a fact that my Flickr photographs have been "scraped" to help train AI datasets. Flickr management is taking a "let's wait and see what happens" approach to the matter. I did not grant permission for these entities to use my imagery to train their effing datasets, but Flickr isn't feeling motivated to stand up for their (paying) customers.

[Alan Klein]

How do you go about different individuals or groups perceiving\interpreting the same information in different manners(based on their education , background, beliefs, IQ , etc) ? Aren't each of us perceive the world around us from inside of our own "bubble" that is formed by the origins, education , background, beliefs, IQ , experience, mood, circumstances, etc
Each photograph (or an image for that matter) is not a truth but a result of a manipulation\transformation of reality. Since when a photograph became an equivalent of "truth". What is truth anyway?
How about fiction books , paintings, poetry and other forms of expression? Do you consider that a threat to truthfulness ? If not, why?

Photographs are presented in court at trial all the time. If there's a sniff of falsehood about it, the judge will throw it out and not allow it in as evidence.

Photographs had been taken as truth because unlike paintings that come from the mind of the artist, photographs capture light in real time. Obviously, it can't actually be the moment in time or a duplicate, but a facsimile of it as close as possible. People know when they are being lied too. Try lying under oath on the stand and see what the judge thinks of your definition of truth.

[Alan Klein]

Not necessarily. And if (as in the case I cited earlier) the same photographer sells just one of their originals to a client or through a stock agency, what stops them from selling the adjacent frames or returning to the same location under the same conditions and making another shot (that might be identical) and selling it to someone else? And to the earlier point, negatives and digital files can be easily duplicated.

FYI, in the case in point, the photographer was found at fault and his images were removed from the stock agency.

That's what juries are for. Both sides would present their evidence and the jury would decide who's telling the truth.