A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

  • sab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.

    Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

      Oh hi Disney. Here to shut down another daycare for having a picture of Mickey Mouse?

      I have full rights to do whatever the fuck I want with content and tech. If I want to make Daffy Duck solve a mystery with Cheech in Victorian England with Genghis Khan as the chief of Scotland yard and Fred Rodgers as the bad guy I am free to do so. If I buy a machine I can take apart all of it, reverse engineer it, modify it, and comment on it on YouTube.

      Bite me corporate

      • sab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yes. Your content and tech. And you even get a say in how others get to use it. Thanks to laws like these. Not to someone else’s.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes my content and my tech. It is physically in my possession it is mine. If you take a picture of it congrats that picture is your picture. What part is confusing you exactly?

          Did I see a sportsball event? I can talk about it to whom I want when I want.

          Did I buy a physical book? I can take as many photos of it as I want.

          Did I buy a cell phone? I can take apart it, modify it, reverse engineer it, benchmark it, and review it.

          Now answer my question if you plan to go after another Daycare, Disney. No more evasions

          • sab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Did I see a sportsball event? I can talk about it to whom I want when I want.

            Sure.

            Did I buy a physical book? I can take as many photos of it as I want.

            Nope. You can’t, for example, take a picture of all the pages and then redistribute those.

            Now answer my question if you plan to go after another Daycare, Disney. No more evasions

            Only if you tell me whether or not you stopped beating your wife.

            What part is confusing you exactly?

            I initially thought you were ignorant of the core principle of intellectual property, but now I see you’re just wilfully delusional.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Sure.

              Oh really? For someone bragging about their knowledge of copyright law I am surprised yo do know about the MLB copyright warning.

              pages and then redistribute those

              I can too.

              Only if you tell me whether or not you stopped beating your wife.

              What you are shilling for free for them on the weekend? Jesus.

              initially thought you were ignorant of the core principle of intellectual property, but now I see you’re just wilfully delusional.

              And I originally thought Disney was paying you but you are apparently giving it to corporate for free.

                • sab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Ha. I knew there was something fishy about that. Anyway, I’m done feeding this troll. I hope he got his worth out of shilling for Altman.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Their copywrite notice is not enforceable

                  Woah did you just make the claim that if a law can’t be enforced it doesn’t exist? Hehehehehehe oh man this is so great 😃 Hey thanks for steelmanning my argument for me. Hey everybody this guy just admitted that copyright is a joke. You heard it, if I can physically copy data with nothing stopping me the law holds no power.

                  The only thing they can prevent is rebroadcasts and recordings of the game. Just talking about it is in no way related to copyright law.

                  Which is not at all like a LLM talking about copyrighted pictures and texts. Why can’t you keep your position consistent? I can.

                  • xthexder@l.sw0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    I’m making the claim that there is no such law that allows the MLB to prevent you from talking about a game. I’m not saying there is a law that’s unenforceable.

                    Why can’t you keep your position consistent?

                    I’m not the person you were talking with earlier. I never mentioned AI, just the MLB copyright notice that you brought up.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s a moral ought from an is. Informal logical fallacy.

          Something is illegal therefore it is immoral.

          No, those are two different facts. Perhaps in a better world there would be a lot of overlap between those two but in the world we live in it is not a given or even likely.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            No, it’s another distinction. Three different things. Something legal can be moral or not. Something made law can be legal or not. For example, if it’s forced in some way so that formally you couldn’t prevent it becoming law, but it’s still illegal, it’s still illegal.

            Which is, other than copyright except for protecting the fact of authorship, why all censorship and surveillance is illegal, and, say, why Armenia legally includes Van, Erzurum, Nakhijevan etc, and the fact that Wilson’s mediation and French mandate have been buried by force just means that Cilicia and Melitene are as well.

            Restoring law and order takes effort, though.