• Disney and NBCUniversal have teamed up to sue Midjourney.
  • The companies allege that the platform used its copyright protected material to train its model and that users can generate content that infringes on Disney and Universal’s copyrighted material.
  • The scathing lawsuit requests that Midjourney be made to pay up for the damage it has caused the two companies.
  • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oh so when Big companies do it, it’s OK. But it’s stealing when an OpenSource AI gives that same power back to the people.

    • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is no logic in mans lust for power. The most self serving will do whatever it takes to achieve wealth, status, and control. The world made so much more sense once I realized that.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    Note that Disney and Universal pirate other people’s stuff whenever they want.

    Note also that all the Generative AI services are very protective of their big cistern of web-crawled data, say when China borrows it for DeepSeek.

    Content, content everywhere and not a drop of principle.

  • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I dunno were I stand on this one. I can see Disneys argument and agree with it on first glance, but at the same time, is the artists doing fan art infringing copyright then?

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Artists doing fan art are infringing copyright, yes. If the fan art meets the fair use criteria then they are not Infringing.

      Companies usually overlook the infringement from fan artists because it’s free advertising and the public backlash is not worth going after lone artists. They usually will go after fan art of people that profit off it.

      • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes I under that, but is Midjourney profiting off these characters? Ie are people paying for these services just so they can create images of these specific characters ? I think that’s the question that needs to be answered here.

        I mean you’re not paying piecemeal as you would for an artist to create your commission of Shrek getting railed by Donkey, you pay for the service which in turns creates anything you tell it to.

        It’s like I’m still not convinced that training AI with copyrighted material is infringement, because in my mind is not any different than me seeing Arthas when I was kid, thinking he was cool as fuck and then deciding to make my own OC inspired by him. Was I infringing on Blizzard’s copyrighted character for taking inspiration from its design? Was Mike Pondsmith infringing on William Gibson’s copyright when he invented Cyberpunk?

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes, your fan art infringed on Blizzards copyright. Blizzard lets it slide, because there’s nothing to gain from it apart from a massive PR desaster.

          Now if you sold your Arthas images on a large enough scale then Blizzard will clearly come after you. Copyright is not only about the damages occured by people not buying Blizzards stuff, but also the license fees they didn’t get from you.

          That’s the real big difference: if Midjourney was a little hobby project of some guy in his basement that never saw the the light of day, there wouldn’t be a problem. But Midjourney is a for-profit tool with the express purpose of allowing people to make images without paying an artist and the way it does that is by using copyrighted works to do so.

  • tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Remember when stealing on sea was piracy? Always has been.

    Copyright infringement is different.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes. Piracy in the sense of stealing from ships in international waters is different from piracy in the sense of copyright infringement. Thanks for that.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I didn’t mean to suggest that. I consider calling copyright infringement “piracy” to be propaganda started by the music industry to push their monetary interests. A derogatory term that conflates it with immoral stealing (and murder). This overstates any harms caused.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      But if both sides are your enemies, they’re both your friends. But if they’re your friends, they aren’t the enemies of your enemies anymore, which would make them your enemies once again. But then they are your friends again. But then

      • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        But if both sides are your enemies, they’re both your friends.

        Yes. And both of my friends will weaken both of my enemies.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      that’s a shit take.

      anyone can do AI now, but everyone can’t profit from it like they can. that’s why the lawsuit.