Free 3D
3D Print Models
3D Scans
Animation & MoCap
Textures
Materials
Skin Reference
2D Game Assets
Sound Effects
Brushes & Tools
Reference Photos
Stock Images
HDR Images
3ds Max
Maya
Blender
Unreal Engine
Unity
ZBrush
Cinema 4D
LightWave
Marmoset
SketchUp
FBX
DAE
DXF
GLBFight AI with Data Poisoning
136
This guy is literally pining for the "good old days"
of content piracy and theft of other peoples IP( music).
of content piracy and theft of other peoples IP( music).
REPLY
! REPORT
Quote:"Generative AI is theft and piracy."
You Believe this ^
Quote :"AI is acceptable, as long it does not interfere with a creative process."
But you also Believe this?^
You Believe this ^
Quote :"AI is acceptable, as long it does not interfere with a creative process."
But you also Believe this?^
REPLY
! REPORT
Masterstroke
Karma: 5,123
18 Hours agoYes, if you don't understand the fine distinction, the problem is clearly on your side.
I really hope for you, you will find a time consuming, satisfying Ai-Creator side, where your "wisdom" is truely appreciated.
We ordinary "mortal anti-AI hypocrates" will never understand your higher advises.
They will only confuse us.
So this glorious ship of generative AI will sail without us. Don't worry, we won't suffer, because we don't have your higher understanding.
Sail on, don't look back back on us. We will be fine.
bye, bye
I really hope for you, you will find a time consuming, satisfying Ai-Creator side, where your "wisdom" is truely appreciated.
We ordinary "mortal anti-AI hypocrates" will never understand your higher advises.
They will only confuse us.
So this glorious ship of generative AI will sail without us. Don't worry, we won't suffer, because we don't have your higher understanding.
Sail on, don't look back back on us. We will be fine.
bye, bye
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
Read it and weep. In a nutshell, AI created works can not be copyrighted...period!
This decision was recently upheld by the US supreme court.
There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used. This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
Read it and weep. In a nutshell, AI created works can not be copyrighted...period!
This decision was recently upheld by the US supreme court.
There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used. This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
REPLY
! REPORT
While I'm not against AI I am against data theft, which is what AI companies have been doing. Open AI could have bought copies of every book it used, read that data into it's system, and trained from it. That isn't what it did, it visited pirate sites to get the copies, and that's why it lost that particular court case. That's what they are talking about in that video, AI companies bypassing any licensing requirements by misusing downloading of websites.
Of course humans are doing that too, there are any number of pirate sites out there where humans can download people's work without paying them. Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site.
And corporations have a long history of stealing public data, making in proprietary "Monetizing" it, and selling it. The SCO Group tried to do that with Linux, AT&T also tried it with Unix, parts of that were written public domain, they tried to make it all proprietary, and eventually sold their version to Novell when that failed.
Generative AI is only theft and piracy because we are allowing corporations to flout laws that send individuals to jail when they attempt to do the same thing.
Pharmaceutical companies do that all the time with basic research paid for by the public.
So the problem isn't so much AI itself, which is simply the next iteration of computer programming, the problem is what we let corporations get away with. And probably the bigger issue is how we handle Intellectual property in general.
Of course humans are doing that too, there are any number of pirate sites out there where humans can download people's work without paying them. Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site.
And corporations have a long history of stealing public data, making in proprietary "Monetizing" it, and selling it. The SCO Group tried to do that with Linux, AT&T also tried it with Unix, parts of that were written public domain, they tried to make it all proprietary, and eventually sold their version to Novell when that failed.
Generative AI is only theft and piracy because we are allowing corporations to flout laws that send individuals to jail when they attempt to do the same thing.
Pharmaceutical companies do that all the time with basic research paid for by the public.
So the problem isn't so much AI itself, which is simply the next iteration of computer programming, the problem is what we let corporations get away with. And probably the bigger issue is how we handle Intellectual property in general.
REPLY
! REPORT
diogenese19348
Karma: 420
17 Hours ago" Artists run up against that all the time, including of course on this site."
I need to explain that one a bit. While pirated content sometimes appears here with people trying to sell it, it gets noticed and taken down pretty quickly, this site upholds Artists IP rights.
What I was talking about is some person buying content from here then loading it on a pirate site to distribute it.
I need to explain that one a bit. While pirated content sometimes appears here with people trying to sell it, it gets noticed and taken down pretty quickly, this site upholds Artists IP rights.
What I was talking about is some person buying content from here then loading it on a pirate site to distribute it.
Quote:There's some nuance to it with regards to how much human input was used.
Right just make sure to make major human adjustments:
All of My AI generated works (still or animation) have major adjustments
Did you actually READ the Court Ruling in article you referenced?:
"Transformative works made with AI can receive copyright protection under U.S. law, but only to the extent that they reflect sufficient human authorship. Purely AI-generated outputs, even if highly detailed prompts are used, generally do not qualify.
Core Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
U.S. copyright law, rooted in the Constitution's Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act, requires human authorship for protection. The U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently held that copyright protects original expression resulting from human creativity. Non-human entities, including AI systems acting autonomously, cannot be authors.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this in Thaler v. Perlmutter (certiorari denied March 2026), leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's affirmation of the human authorship requirement.
Works generated entirely by AI in response to prompts are not copyrightable, as prompts convey ideas rather than controlling expressive elements.
Protection for Transformative or AI-Assisted Works
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report (Part 2 on Copyrightability of AI Outputs) and March 2023 Registration Guidance affirm that existing law is flexible enough to protect works involving AI when human creativity determines sufficient expressive elements.
Protection applies in these scenarios:
Significant human modifications or edits: Substantial creative alterations to AI-generated material (e.g., detailed retouching, compositing, or stylistic changes) can make the human contributions copyrightable.
Creative selection, arrangement, or compilation: Humans who curate, organize, or combine multiple AI outputs (or mix them with human-authored elements) in an original way may claim protection for those aspects.
AI as an assistive tool: When AI aids the creative process but a human maintains control over the final expression (e.g., in a larger human-generated work), the overall work or human portions remain eligible. The inclusion of AI-generated material does not automatically bar protection.
Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the degree of human creative control. Minor adjustments typically do not suffice.
Right just make sure to make major human adjustments:
All of My AI generated works (still or animation) have major adjustments
Did you actually READ the Court Ruling in article you referenced?:
"Transformative works made with AI can receive copyright protection under U.S. law, but only to the extent that they reflect sufficient human authorship. Purely AI-generated outputs, even if highly detailed prompts are used, generally do not qualify.
Core Principle: Human Authorship Requirement
U.S. copyright law, rooted in the Constitution's Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act, requires human authorship for protection. The U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently held that copyright protects original expression resulting from human creativity. Non-human entities, including AI systems acting autonomously, cannot be authors.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this in Thaler v. Perlmutter (certiorari denied March 2026), leaving intact the D.C. Circuit's affirmation of the human authorship requirement.
Works generated entirely by AI in response to prompts are not copyrightable, as prompts convey ideas rather than controlling expressive elements.
Protection for Transformative or AI-Assisted Works
The Copyright Office's January 2025 report (Part 2 on Copyrightability of AI Outputs) and March 2023 Registration Guidance affirm that existing law is flexible enough to protect works involving AI when human creativity determines sufficient expressive elements.
Protection applies in these scenarios:
Significant human modifications or edits: Substantial creative alterations to AI-generated material (e.g., detailed retouching, compositing, or stylistic changes) can make the human contributions copyrightable.
Creative selection, arrangement, or compilation: Humans who curate, organize, or combine multiple AI outputs (or mix them with human-authored elements) in an original way may claim protection for those aspects.
AI as an assistive tool: When AI aids the creative process but a human maintains control over the final expression (e.g., in a larger human-generated work), the overall work or human portions remain eligible. The inclusion of AI-generated material does not automatically bar protection.
Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the degree of human creative control. Minor adjustments typically do not suffice.
REPLY
! REPORT
Quote:This decision has already opened up a flood of lawsuits against the large AI companies.
There has already been a "flood of lawsuits"
against the AI companies for years and everyone who argued that internet scraping is "theft has FAILED.
Anthropic settled for billions with some writers because they actually downloaded specific whole books from one of those…. "knowledge should be FREE!"…. pirated book websites, that the guy, in Vince's video, is lamenting about such pirate sites being shuttered.
Warner Music sued the SUNO AI music service but then made a deal to profit share with SUNO for training on the the music artists Data that they own.
There has already been a "flood of lawsuits"
against the AI companies for years and everyone who argued that internet scraping is "theft has FAILED.
Anthropic settled for billions with some writers because they actually downloaded specific whole books from one of those…. "knowledge should be FREE!"…. pirated book websites, that the guy, in Vince's video, is lamenting about such pirate sites being shuttered.
Warner Music sued the SUNO AI music service but then made a deal to profit share with SUNO for training on the the music artists Data that they own.
REPLY
! REPORT
no different than the porch pirate dye-plosion videos. if you scrape or pirate, you deserve what you get.
REPLY
! REPORT