undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshanebellone3y ago0 comments

It's the closest thing to a precedent.

Hip-hop originally recorded and transformed vocals, instruments, and beats to create something new from pieces of something old. The practice occurred without permission and obviously ended up in court. Now sampling requires a licensing agreement. The additional cost has fundamentally changed the genre (over the last 40 years).

Hip-hop and tech both ignored IP rights because neither started with a legal framework and both would have found the additional cost prohibitive.

0 comments

haswell3y ago

That's helpful. I wasn't aware of the eventual licensing enforcement.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you see the similarity more in how the initial side-stepping of copyright eventually gave way to new licensing rules (or adherence to existing rules).

I've heard similar sentiment trying to make another point entirely - something closer to arguing that the AI is creatively inspired the way humans are, and therefore is by definition not infringing.

I suspect this might be where the flurry of downvotes came from.

shanebelloneOP3y ago

"you see the similarity more in how the initial side-stepping of copyright eventually gave way to new licensing rules"

The systems are similar too despite having completely different internal processes. Both transformed existing IP without permission, to produce sufficiently remixed art as an output. A sufficiently generic abstraction would look very similar despite the disparity of domain.

The primary difference between hip-hop and Stable Diffusion is that AI cannot rationalize, explain, or attribute inspiration to a final product.

There was no aha moment and thus no creativity. It has no vested interest in its work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse