> No, I don't generally think it's okay to profit off of the work of others without their consent.
I'd argue that essentially all work based off the work of others. I can only draw a "car" better than a random guess because I've seen many (individually copyrighted) car designs.
That's not to say we inherently have to treat use of statistical models the same, but rather that there does have to be a line somewhere to define where a new work, while dependant on previous works in aggregate, is sufficiently transformative - not carrying substantial similarity to any particular existing work that played a part in its creation - and can therefore be used by the author to make a living.
That line has to be placed in a way that prioritizes the progress of sciences and useful arts, rather than just enriching rightsholder megacorps like Getty Images/Universal Music. It should certainly allow training something like a tumor segmentation network, rather than rendering it infeasible.
Also, while whether it's morally okay is relevant and worth discussing, I think the question still stands of whether you believe my example would count as fair use, given the transformative nature and lack of impact on the market of the original work.
> Just because I think there are situations where it's not ethically wrong to use someone's work without permission does not mean I think it's ethically wrong for someone to protect their work any way they see fit.
> To use an extreme example: I do not think it's wrong for a starving man to steal food. I also do not think it's wrong for someone to defend their food from being stolen, regardless of the morality of the thieves' motivation.
I personally agree that they have a right to do so, but I don't think it'd be "baffling" that the [starving man/person training a tumor detector] would be against it, and it's likely not a "non-issue" for them to obtain sufficient [food/data] through other means.
Particularly since there are already means to opt-out that are respected by scrapers, and this is instead an attempt to do active damage. I guess in the analogy it'd be leaving out poisoned bread, although that's more extreme than I intend.
I'd argue that essentially all work based off the work of others. I can only draw a "car" better than a random guess because I've seen many (individually copyrighted) car designs.
That's not to say we inherently have to treat use of statistical models the same, but rather that there does have to be a line somewhere to define where a new work, while dependant on previous works in aggregate, is sufficiently transformative - not carrying substantial similarity to any particular existing work that played a part in its creation - and can therefore be used by the author to make a living.
That line has to be placed in a way that prioritizes the progress of sciences and useful arts, rather than just enriching rightsholder megacorps like Getty Images/Universal Music. It should certainly allow training something like a tumor segmentation network, rather than rendering it infeasible.
Also, while whether it's morally okay is relevant and worth discussing, I think the question still stands of whether you believe my example would count as fair use, given the transformative nature and lack of impact on the market of the original work.
> Just because I think there are situations where it's not ethically wrong to use someone's work without permission does not mean I think it's ethically wrong for someone to protect their work any way they see fit.
> To use an extreme example: I do not think it's wrong for a starving man to steal food. I also do not think it's wrong for someone to defend their food from being stolen, regardless of the morality of the thieves' motivation.
I personally agree that they have a right to do so, but I don't think it'd be "baffling" that the [starving man/person training a tumor detector] would be against it, and it's likely not a "non-issue" for them to obtain sufficient [food/data] through other means.
Particularly since there are already means to opt-out that are respected by scrapers, and this is instead an attempt to do active damage. I guess in the analogy it'd be leaving out poisoned bread, although that's more extreme than I intend.