Fav AI outcome out there...

[BTM_Pix]

On 6/5/2025 at 7:38 PM, Emanuel said:

This isn’t about violating copyright

I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face.

The BFI have just published a report saying that 130,000 films and scripts have been used without permission or accreditation.

It is all about violating copyright.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/09/ai-plundering-scripts-poses-direct-threat-to-uk-screen-sector-says-bfi

[eatstoomuchjam]

I'm not aware of any existing generative AI model that could be even remotely considered to be ethical in its construction and any of use of the generated results should be considered generally unethical.  Any use of Generative AI is using an unprecedented amount of stolen material.

The AI companies even admit as much, saying that being obliged to require permission from the rights holders to use their existing content would be fatal to their business model.

It's like a thief saying that the invention of locked doors presented an existential threat to their business model.

 

And keep in mind that the end game for most/all of these AI companies is not to make your life better unless you are one of the huge businesses that are financing their development or a totalitarian government.

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face.

The BFI have just published a report saying that 130,000 films and scripts have been used without permission or accreditation.

It is all about violating copyright.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/09/ai-plundering-scripts-poses-direct-threat-to-uk-screen-sector-says-bfi

We’re clearly not talking about the same thing. There’s obviously no need to use AI to violate copyright, that’s not its only purpose! That’s exactly the point I was making.

Stolen scripts? I’ve seen that happening since the ’90s (when I started to work in this business, for Elias Querejeta as professional script reader FYI), a long time before AI ever came into the picture.

Has this technology made things worse? I wouldn’t be surprised. I fully share that concern, in any case. Honestly, there’s nothing new here.

And yup, it’s a high price to pay for adopting this kind of technology indeed.

 

6 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

I'm not aware of any existing generative AI model that could be even remotely considered to be ethical in its construction and any of use of the generated results should be considered generally unethical.  Any use of Generative AI is using an unprecedented amount of stolen material.

If we’re using our own stuff, then nothing is being stolen.

 

The meaning up there (@my posts) is very clear:

AI is just a tool. The use of it is something else, though so yeah, what you’re saying fits too.

 

But that’s not really the point I am making.

It’s the usual tone in these kinds of discussions: always about taking sides. WOW We have to pick a side or risk being seen as a minor part of the picture. And if we don’t explicitly state our stance, we risk no longer being seen as part of our own group : P or being taken as pure thieves!! Phew...

 

If people prefer to see things in B&W, they shouldn’t blame the world we live all in, later on. I’m done with binary thinking, always have been BTW. 

And I’m not here pretending my dick’s bigger than anyone’s. Everything you wrote, I stand. I don't retract a single word of mine up there either... What about that? ;- )

[KnightsFan]

If you think that it is unethical to copy a commercial movie and personally sell those copies without the permission of the movie's owner, then it's hard to imagine how it could be ethical to use that same movie to train a model that is then sold without the permission of that movie's owner.

[Emanuel]

Of course but don't forget the prior discussion brought to the previous page about the whole case of the history of this medium, no less...

And yes, AI is clearly a space where copyright violations make it even harder to protect original work. My point is, this problem didn’t start with AI... not even close.

Here's a blatant example: the original work (years in the making!) of a close associate and business partner of mine has been stolen by... Hollywood! : X 

Go figure...

And it has nothing to do with AI.

Does that strike a chord? ; )

Now imagine how real thieves are using this technology today. This isn’t a simple problem... it goes far beyond AI. At its core, it’s about a lack of ethics, shady alliances, and the pursuit of profit with no respect for others’ work.

Let’s be clear: this didn’t start with AI. In the worst-case scenario, the introduction of this new technology can only make things worse.

In my country, people are used to saying something like this, although pessimists are also often seen as realists: «An optimist sees opportunity in every challenge; a pessimist sees a problem in every chance.»

Unfortunately, I guess we could replace it here (not only for the things discussed in this thread but also for others) with:

Where goodwill finds a chance, the thief finds a catch.™

(not stolen anywhere... : D this line is copyrighted right now LOL ;- )

 

 

[KnightsFan]

There's a pretty big difference between one person stealing a screenplay or synopsis, and scraping the entire internet to make a generalized tool that billions of people use daily. Both can be unethical, but it's a few orders of magnitude difference in how many people it harms and to what degree.

I believe that we should create technology for its own sake. I don't want to halt AI progress. There just needs to be a way to ensure that it benefits all people, particularly the people who (unwillingly/unknowingly) contributed to creating the models.

[eatstoomuchjam]

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

If we’re using our own stuff, then nothing is being stolen.

 

Are you saying that you trained an LLM entirely on things where you owned the copyright and all other appropriate rights?  If so, that's cool and ethical.

On the other hand, if you're saying that you used one of the existing LLM's that were made by OpenAI/Google/HuggingFace/etc, then you're not using your own stuff.  You're using a tool that could not exist without massive copyright theft on a previously unprecedented scale.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

If people prefer to see things in B&W, they shouldn’t blame the world we live all in, later on. I’m done with binary thinking, always have been BTW. 

The part that's black and white to me is silicon valley buttholes who have admitted that their business model cannot possibly function without stealing content.  I've heard that some people (Getty images, maybe?) are allowing people to opt in to AI training for some compensation.  I think those people will be short sighted and a bit foolish, but the resulting AI would be, in my opinion, fully ethical.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

And I’m not here pretending my dick’s bigger than anyone’s. Everything you wrote, I stand. I don't retract a single word of mine up there either... What about that? ;- )

Maybe I'll go ask AI how to make my dick bigger than everyone's.

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Here's a blatant example: the original work (years in the making!) of a close associate and business partner of mine has been stolen by... Hollywood! : X 

That is also very bad.  But "Hollywood also steals things" is a kind of a terrible justification for "AI companies steal things."  Was your friend's script the one that was used for the Filipino film that google tells me also exists with that name that was made by Mavx productions?  If not, it seems like the Phillipines also stole from your friend (and that's also bad).  But also, knowing that the other exists makes me want to intentionally not see the Hollywood release and go see the other one, at least partly because I don't like supporting that kind of theft.

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Where goodwill finds a chance, the thief finds a catch.™

(not stolen anywhere... : D this line is copyrighted right now LOL ;- )

The phrase doesn't make a lot of sense in English so I don't think you'll have to worry too much about it being stolen.  Did you mean something like "Where people present things with good will, a thief finds victims?"

 

[Emanuel]

@eatstoomuchjam I was only half joking with that last line, I was trying to come up with an example that fits the topic ; )

On the leftover and also to @KnightsFan now... That case unfortunately goes far beyond a mere synopsis... 

As with everything in life, there’s a deeper reality beneath the surface.

The real problem comes when we tend to oversimplify things, stripping it of its intrinsic complexity. There's always a hidden part somewhere. And details obviously count even when they don't make all the difference.

Once again, we face the B&W dilemma. The palette holds countless shades...

It’s one thing to replicate 'external' models... it’s something else entirely to build in layers upon the rough sketches of one’s own process. And between the two lies an infinite universe of possibilities in how it can be used.

So...

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Are you saying that you trained an LLM entirely on things where you owned the copyright and all other appropriate rights?  If so, that's cool and ethical.

Yes. 

The pairing of my copyright, legal, and film background and roots—strictly fueled by creative commitment—keeps me tethered. A good producer pays just as much attention to copyright stuff as to the creative side of things. I would never simply drift away.

[Emanuel]

45 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Was your friend's script the one that was used for the Filipino film that google tells me also exists with that name that was made by Mavx productions?  If not, it seems like the Phillipines also stole from your friend (and that's also bad).  But also, knowing that the other exists makes me want to intentionally not see the Hollywood release and go see the other one, at least partly because I don't like supporting that kind of theft.

Others who were familiar with his script brought this to him (and there are additional details I’ll omit mentioning here) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Santa_(2024_film)

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Others who were familiar with his script brought this to him (and there are additional details I’ll omit mentioning here) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Santa_(2024_film)

Right, but I was asking if he was associated with this one that hasn't been released yet, also made in 2024, but Filipino and with the same plot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Satan

 

[Emanuel]

36 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Right, but I was asking if he was associated with this one that hasn't been released yet, also made in 2024, but Filipino and with the same plot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Satan

Got it! : ) No, not this one... Title means nothing ; ) It is much beyond a single title but not about this one in particular. Take a look again on the plot... And information disclosed.

 

Yes, there are countless ways to take something from someone, tweak it just enough (disgusting attitude to take advantage without giving proper credit, especially when it’s so obvious where it came from), and voilà, pass it off as new.

Revolting to say the least...

To people handling this in a daily life, AI looks like a children's play. I know it's not. But there are many more evil ar$eholes other than a damned LLM... : P 

 

A different title and outfit won’t cover up what it really is. But not the case you've pointed out.

It wouldn't be wise to elaborate further, here and now. The original author knows my legal advice for the subject matter.

I believe that speaks volumes, considering what's already out there ;- )

[eatstoomuchjam]

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Got it! : ) No, not this one... Title means nothing ; ) It is much beyond a single title but not about this one in particular. Take a look again on the plot... And information disclosed.

Right.  That's what I'm saying - the plot is nearly the same as your friend's.

"Chichi (Sienna Stevens) writes a letter to Santa Claus for Christmas but accidentally misspells Santa's name. This leads to the letter finding its way to Satan (Paolo Contis), who answers to the girl's wishes. Satan attempts to tempt Chichi to evil, but the girl's virtues resists the demon's plans and changes him instead."

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

To people handling this in a daily life, AI looks like a children's play. I know it's not. But there are many more evil ar$eholes other than a damned LLM... : P 

Yes, and a number of those evil assholes own the companies that make large language models. 

[Emanuel]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Right.  That's what I'm saying - the plot is nearly the same as your friend's.

"Chichi (Sienna Stevens) writes a letter to Santa Claus for Christmas but accidentally misspells Santa's name. This leads to the letter finding its way to Satan (Paolo Contis), who answers to the girl's wishes. Satan attempts to tempt Chichi to evil, but the girl's virtues resists the demon's plans and changes him instead."

Yes, and a number of those evil assholes own the companies that make large language models. 

The one we know is the other one, but OK thanks for your heads-up! : ) We have another case very likely then... This is a plague. 

I have nothing against technology but those people who tend to take advantage from illegitimate access? We're obviously talking about something else in fact...

On that case, we're studying right now a legal action based on copyright claim. Now you've brought another case. I've just notified the author on your finding.

[eatstoomuchjam]

I hope the author receives just compensation for their idea!