联邦法官允许人工智能版权案中的关键索赔继续进行

币界网Published on 2024-08-15Last updated on 2024-08-15

币界网报道:

一名联邦法官裁定,针对人工智能图像开发商Stability AI、Midjourney和DeviantART的版权侵权诉讼将继续进行。这一决定是在周一提交的文件显示,虽然美国地区法官William Orrick已经驳回了一些法律指控,但其他指控仍然有效之后做出的。

代表艺术家Sarah Andersen、Kelly McKernan和Karla Ortiz的律师提起诉讼,声称人工智能系统的开发人员未经许可使用艺术家的作品来训练人工智能模型。尽管Orrick法官驳回了DMCA和不当得利的指控,但他允许侵犯版权和商标的指控通过。

“法院提出一些索赔的决定表明,艺术家们将有机会出示他们的证据。”Knobbe Martens的知识产权诉讼律师Mark Lezama说

法院裁决为证据开示和收集打开了大门

合理使用辩护允许在未获得版权持有人许可的情况下使用一些受版权保护的材料。因此,Orrick法官认为,合理使用只能根据案件中的证据来决定。这意味着,即使艺术家可以处理案件,他们也必须支持自己的主张,以避免得到即决判决。

根据Lezama的说法,这项裁决意味着艺术家可以自由地进行发现,以获得支持其主张的证据。然而,如果基于人工智能的公司可以在简易判决动议期间向法官提出合理使用的论点,那么该案件可能永远不会进入陪审团审判。

案例给人工智能开发人员带来压力,引发行业担忧

该诉讼还包括视频AI图像生成器Runway,这只会增加AI开发者的压力。10月,Orrick法官以证据不足为由驳回了针对Midjourney和DeviantART的大部分指控。然而,Andersen对Stable Diffusion的开发商Stability AI的诉讼仍在进行中。

目前,Stability AI尚未就正在进行的案件发表任何声明。同样,Stability AI的前首席执行官、音频主管Ed Newton-Rex已经离开了公司。Newton Rex还公开指责Stability AI涉嫌侵权。

最近,总部位于荷兰的组织BREIN设法以侵犯版权为由删除了人们用来训练人工智能的大型语言数据集。BREIN在周二发布的一份声明中指出,该数据集包括10000本盗版书籍、新闻文章以及电影和电视剧的荷兰语字幕。此外,欧盟最近提出了一项新的人工智能法规,称为《人工智能法案》。

Related Reads

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit14m ago

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit14m ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit1h ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片