20
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1809 readers
113 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Starting things off here with a couple solid sneers of some dipshit automating copyright infringement - one from Reid Southen, and one from Ed-Newton Rex:
@BlueMonday1984 "This new AI will push watermark innovation" jfc
New watermark technology interacts with increasingly widespread training data poisoning efforts so that if you try and have a commercial model remove it the picture is replaced entirely with dickbutt. Actually can we just infect all AI models so that any output contains hidden a dickbutt?
the future that e/accs want!
"what is the legal proof" brother in javascript, please talk to a lawyer.
E: so many people posting like the past 30 years didnt happen. I know they are not going to go as hard after google as they went after the piratebay but still.
lmao he things copyright and watermark are synonyms
Not exactly, he thinks that the watermark is part of the copyrighted image and that removing it is such a transformative intervention that the result should be considered a new, non-copyrighted image.
It takes some extra IQ to act this dumb.
I have no other explanation for a sentence as strange as "The only reason copyrights were the way they were is because tech could remove other variants easily." He's talking about how watermarks need to be all over the image and not just a little logo in the corner!
The "legal proof" part is a different argument. His picture is a generated picture so it contains none of the original pixels, it is merely the result of prompting the model with the original picture. Considering the way AI companies have so far successfully acted like they're shielded from copyright law, he's not exactly wrong. I would love to see him go to court over it and become extremely wrong in the process though.
Which is so obviously stupid I shouldn't have to even point it out, but by that logic I could just take any image and lighten/darken every pixel by one unit and get a completely new image with zero pixels corresponding to the original.
Nooo you see unlike your counterexemple, the AI is generating the picture from scratch, moulding noise until it forms the same shapes and colours as the original picture, much like a painter would copy another painting by brushing paint onto a blank canvas which ... Oh, that's illegal too ... ? ... Oh.
inb4 decades of art forgers apply for pardons
It'll probably set a very bad precedent that fucks up copyright law in various ways (because we can't have anything nice in this timeline), but I'd like to see him get his ass beaten as well. Thankfully, removing watermarks is already illegal, so the courts can likely nail him on that and call it a day.