163

I guess this is going to be everything on the internet now (hexbear.net)

submitted 7 months ago by HarryLime@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 16 points 7 months ago

but unfortunately it also doesn't generate wholly new art, it creates a collage of existing work, but doesn't attribute any of the art of the other artists used to make it. So even if it were a tool used by artists, it would be effectively stealing art from other artists in the process.

dear fucking god please stop upholding capitalist ideas about IP rights.

[-] OutrageousHairdo@hexbear.net 5 points 7 months ago

Hot take: Artists should be able to not have their life's work automatically fed into the plagiarism machine without their compensation or consent. Like I'm not going to pretend that Mickey Mouse being copyrighted for a century is a normal thing, but people having their labor exploited for the profit of the wealthy is kinda the thing we're supposed to be against, no?

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 5 points 7 months ago

does art belong to everyone or not?

i think you shouldn't get to opt out of the remix machine but the corporations shouldn't ~~be able to exploit it for profit~~ exist. Having your work not become part of the commons is the same shit as a century of copyright. Anything we do about these generative models that allows corpos to continue to use them is a bandaid at best.

[-] OutrageousHairdo@hexbear.net 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well I disagree. You should have a fundamental right to opt out of these things. Even in a perfect world where everything is just and every artist can support themselves, I see no reason it shouldn't require the creator's consent. Surely, with no financial pressures to corrupt things, many creatives would willingly contribute to these models, and we wouldn't need to resort to this ugly, non-consensual scraping.

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 4 points 7 months ago

so i should be able to prevent my shit from entering the public domain? how is that different than the mouse?

[-] OutrageousHairdo@hexbear.net 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I just think, fundamentally, there should be some level of control the artist has over these things. You asked me earlier if art should "belong to everyone", and I guess I don't think it should, at least not fully or without restriction. I'm not against stuff like fanart and fanfiction and things like that, not in the slightest, but the idea of having my work taken in that way, mechanistically, even in a non-artistic context, like the conversation we're having right now, feels so thoroughly violating that I just can't support it. It feels like in the minds of a lot of people, the only option an artist should have to avoid these things, to avoid being scraped, is to seclude themselves, or at least their work, and to completely shut people off from experiencing it. I don't want that, but I don't want to be scraped either. Is it so strange? Am I really the weird one for wanting a middle ground, where the humans are allowed to see me and the AI isn't?

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 5 points 7 months ago

i think that feeling is probably rooted in capitalism and precarity? whatever fan works you're imagining and fan works "with an advanced computer" are the same.

i do think we should have some protection against e.g. political candidates we don't endorse using our art, or corporations profiting from our work, but something automatic like how covers work in music seems pretty sane.

Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics. A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder [...] even if they do not have any permission from the original author.

rare copyright law w.

if somebody wants to make art and not actually share it for metaphysical reasons i really don't respect that and don't think shit like city or asinine stunts should be validated, but that's a huge tangent.

[-] OutrageousHairdo@hexbear.net 2 points 7 months ago

Again, I'm not against any kind of voluntary arragement, but the first part of this comment, the first two sentences, just don't feel right to me. I'm writing an effortpost as we speak, maybe I'll put that up later. Still gotta organize my thoughts on that.