https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/19/google-youtube-ai-training-veo-3.html

Will Vtuber companies be able to sue Youtube for this?

>Hmm, will the companies sue the company that owns the platform they run their business on?
Pull your head out of your ass and stop being retarded.

>>101369275
youtube doesn't own the rights to the models or the rights to the characters you stupid nigger. you can't record something then claim it's your property because you own the platform.

How did they not know? Of course they knew. Another fake headline

>>101369373
Because Google didn't tell them? They use a small percent of user content for training and they don't inform the users whose content they use.

>>101369315
Doesn't fucking matter, owning the platform gives you the right kick them off of it the nanosecond they get uppity.

>>101369315
You ever look at the ToS for...anything?

>>101369476
It would be stupid to think otherwise. Every website and app with a EULA or TOS harvests user data for marketing purposes.
Of course they were gonna use it to train AI since no laws in any country explicitly forbid it yet.

They're gonna give out a vague apology then keep the data they've already collected like they do every time they get caught with their pants down.

>>101369018 (OP)
Tha Japanese ones could probably sue them in Japan. The American ones are fucked, they don't have rights lol

>>101369018 (OP)
no because google has more money

>>101369315
The AI isn't recreating the models or the characters. Putting someone else's video through an learning algorithm so that their AI learns to associate foxes with the color red is not copyright infringement.

>>101369315
>>101370303
When I watched a vtuber video, I learned that anime girls sometimes have boob windows. I guess Cover can now sue me for reacreating their IP and characters.
You stupid know-nothing faggot.

>>101370609
Are you a child or are you mentally handicapped

>>101370825
he's from an uneducated asian country

>>101369018 (OP)
What do they think the Chat AI summary is for?

“Creators” need to give it up. Love it or hate it, there is no escape from AI unless you stick to pen and paper.

>>101371391
>unless you stick to pen and paper
and then someone can take a photo of it and feed it to ai anyway

>>101369018 (OP)
Google has infinitely more money than any vtuber corpo or all of them combined, they can aford to drag their feet in court until everyone else starts seeing red numbers.

If an AI looks at all the stuff I've created over my life and I finally come into contact with it...
...an AI that is trained over everything I like and knows what I dislike...
It better not suck.

>>101371706
I really shouldn't stick my dick in there, however...

>>101369018 (OP)
Safe to assume everyone uses everything to train AI.

>>101369315
Court is still out on copyright including "inspiration" or ai training, but it seems to swing towards no, especially since AI is becoming such an important aspect of society

>>101372320
open ai is being sued by disney and universal. im sure google can be sued.

>>101372320
Meta got caught blatantly downloading movies and stuff. The only reason they haven't been sued to oblivion yet is due to the current president being a big tech shill.

>>101372507
And the US government knows AI is the new tech race, they are not gonna bacck OpenAI not freaking Disney

>>101372670
Facebook actually tried arguing that it is ok since they're not seeding those torrents

>>101370825
>>101371190
Go ahead and explain how an algorithm assigning concepts and ideas to a list of pair objects based on the patterns it's able to recognize is commiting copyright infringement Mr. Adult who is definitely not a fucking retard who knows nothing about AI or machine learning.

>>101372670
Even then, they will likely win. Feeding a movie to a learning model is not the same as copying that movie. In other words, if you give an AI Lord of the Rings movies, then maybe its learning model will associate swords with glowing like Frodo's sword Sting does when it's around evil or whatever.
And so if you then ask the AI to make a sword, it might make a sword that looks like it's glowing.
That isn't copyright infringement. Humans make these types of associations all the time. Copyright infringement would be if you asked the AI to write you a fantasy story, and after being given the Lord of the Rings movies, it outputs The Lord of the Rings movies. I believe something like this happened recently with some company and The New York Times where they were able to get the AI to regurgitate paywalled NYT articles wholesale. That is obviously copyright infringement and they deserve to lose that case, but simply having an AI be trained on copyrighted material is not copyright infringement at all.
I hate AI "artwork" and I think it looks like trash, but people don't really understand what machine learning is and these retards all jumping the gun in lawsuits is going to lead to bigger problems down the road.

>>101374914
>copying isn't copying if you put it in a different folder
I don't give a fuck about ai but you are going to need a better defense

>>101375286
>Feeding a movie to a learning model is not the same as copying that movie
Nowhere in the license when you purchase a movie does it give you permission to do that so on its face is it copyright infringement. It's not just about copying it also includes derivative works and distribution.

>>101375329
Except it's not copying to a different folder. It's not copying at all.
If I write a program that takes a video file about a given subject, assigns a color to that video based on the average pixel hue and color of all the pixels in the video, and then I make a list of subjects and their associated colors, would that be copyright infringement if those videos were copyrighted?
The answer is a definite "no".

What if i consult my list and see that gray is a common color associated with videos of elephants, and so using that information, I make a cartoon about a gray elephant? Is that copyright infringement since my list was created with copyrighted works?
The answer again, is "no".

I just described a system that could be considered a very rudimentary form of "machine learning" or "AI". I think the problem here is that retards like you have no idea what AI is or how it works, and you instantly bring out the pitch forks whenever something is too complicated for you to understand. Have you ever used Google translate? If yes, then you've enjoyed software trained on millions of copyrighted works.

>>101375286
They are illegally obtaining copyrighted material and using it for profit. How the process works mekes little difference

>>101375787
If that were true, anyone making a review or critique about a movie would be liable for copyright infringement since the license doesn't specify that reviews and derivative works are allowed. Anyone writing about a movie in any capacity would face the same legal trouble. Fortunately, our legal system is more well put together than the retardland pandemonium you think it is, and licenses don't work the way you think they do on an explicit use basis.

>>101375828
You're the retarded one who thinks machines are learning. You fell for the techbro buzzword and now think your ai girlfriend actually loves you.

>>101369315
you’re a piece of shit

>>101375956
If they can prove that the company obtained their works illegally, then they can face the same type of lawsuit that you or I could for torrenting a movie.
However using copyrighted material for profit is not inherently illegal. The fair use exemption is one such example that protects the creation of derivative works that are transformative determined using a four-pronged legal test.
But the AI algorithms are not even creating derivative works that contain elements of copyrighted material. They are creating new works trained off of data sets that include generalized infoemation ABOUT copyrighted material. There is a big distinction there.
If I were to create a parody animation about Luffy from One Piece and upload it to youtube, I would most likely be protected under fair use, especially if it were making fun of the anime.
If I wanted to write a story about pirates and included a character who was a skeleton man because I watched One Piece and liked Brooke, then that isn't copyright infringement at all so long as I didn't actually make that skeleton character a copy of Brooke.
The second example is what AI does. That's why it's called "machine learning". It learns associations in a similar way to how humans learn associations. What you're proposing is that no one can ever make media again after watching something that's copyrighted because the data set in their head contains copyrighted IP from someone else. That's absurd.

>>101376137
No faggot. I was not "influenced" by tech bros. I literally have a math degree and I was trying to explain to you what machine learning even is. But you're clearly too stupid to even attempt to understand the subject.

>>101369540
>>101370510
uploading a video onto youtube doesn't give permission for google to steal your likeness and allow people to upload videos of you saying racist shit

>>101376698
To be fair they could just ask for the latter

>>101376698
Go ahead and show me where that's happening, you colossal fucking ignoramus.

>>101376698
Sorry, that was mean. Go ahead and show me where any of that is happening.

>>101375973
>anyone making a review or critique about a movie would be liable for copyright infringement
by law they ARE liable
however the united states provides Fair Use defense against it but it is a DEFENSE against it which means if you're bringing it up you're already in court.

>>101377590
You are mostly right, however Lenz v. Universal established that fair use must be considered BEFORE issuing a copyright complaint or lawsuit.

>>101376327
nice argument raahj

>>101369018 (OP)
Absolutely not. It might be obvious that they're doing it, but you can't get evidence to prove specifically what's happening, so they can deny it all the want.

>>101372670
How's that any different from me watching a film and studying it to implement it into my own film making?

>>101369275
/thread
Thrvk Nvke

>AI monkey defense force
A reminder that AI cannot create, it can only steal, this is youtube just stealing from creators because they can't create themselves.
Also what is youtube going to do, deplatfrom their money makers for this if they do bring this to court? Not happening.

>>101369018 (OP)
Maybe. The article says Disney is suing Midjourney. It will take a lot of money to sue google though so the agencies should join a class action suit

>>101372320
>important aspect of society
The only "importance" it has is making lines go up for tech bubble stocks.

>>101370303
Specifically the Japanese can't do shit, they decided training a model off of copyrighted works does not violate copyright.
>>Currently, per Japanese copyright law (PDF), re-affirmed as current policy in April 2023 by Keiko Nagaoka, the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, states that all works are permitted to be used for the purposes of AI training.

>I didn't knew the company working on AI was using their services to mine data
Sure

The company owned by Google utilizes user data/content for their own benefit? This is the first time this has ever happened before.

Why can't a big retard company or the DMCA create their own AI model with all their copyright to detect shit?
It should be piss easy given how fast and cheap AI works now.
The AI would only have to use opposing AI and compare prompts results to their own prompt results and set a similarity threshold.

>>101386068
its like how do they even think they are paid?
Do they think that money just appears out of thin air to pay them just for clicking the go live button?
streamers get 99% of their money from sponsorships (that they get based on their demographic data!) and ads (which are attributed to them based on their viewers data/profile that google has made for them), their entire business revolves around google gathering data and profiling people, and now they are getting mad about it despite being literally paid for years explicitily because of this
It's just retards not understanding how their industry works and then being mad that google is profiting off of them