3 ms·

The work of Art is the act of putting it up for auction on Christie's. That's what makes it a conceptual piece that is being discussed. People often mistake ar

The work of Art is the act of putting it up for auction on Christie's. That's what makes it a conceptual piece that is being discussed. People often mistake art for a form of labor production. They expect that labor has to have been performed to create value. But that all changed in the early 20th century. I really feel bad for Dr. Beef, this must really hurt. But according to the twitter thread ( https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 ) they didn't use the pre-trained models. In any case pre-trained models are labor, not end product. They simply trained them from scratch. Possibly on the same input set. Even if his license was more strict, they still could have just rewritten the same code and it would have escaped the licensing. Should the original GAN paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661 https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661 ? ) be given artistic credit here ? What is authorship in this context ? There is a whole chain of people furthering things and doing labor and making decisions. Yet nobody has even mentioned the original artists whose works were used to train the model. Would it be different if they were living artists ? In what way is a GAN essentially different than photoshop copy and paste of elements ?

delinka 8y ago
"...they still could have just rewritten the same code and it would have escaped the licensing." I may be misinterpreting your intent, but this seems disingenuous to me. I can't go look at the Linux kernel, then 'rewrite' [the same code] with my fingers and keyboard to escape copyright ownership of Linux kernel contributors. I can rewrite code that implements a described process. Or code that implements a described interface. If this was your intent, I'll take the blame for misunderstanding. But I caution the use of phrases like "the same code" when you actually mean new code that implements the same process.
- crucialfelix 8y ago
  I mean new code that implements the same process. But in reality I mean people who take code and rewrite it just enough to obscure where it came from. It is totally disingenuous and immoral and all too common.
- karlerss 8y ago
  Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Q... > narrator/reviewer considers Menard's fragmentary Quixote (which is line-for-line identical to the original) to be much richer in allusion than Cervantes's "original" work because Menard's must be considered in light of world events since 1602.

delinka 8y ago

"...they still could have just rewritten the same code and it would have escaped the licensing." I may be misinterpreting your intent, but this seems disingenuous to me. I can't go look at the Linux kernel, then 'rewrite' [the same code] with my fingers and keyboard to escape copyright ownership of Linux kernel contributors. I can rewrite code that implements a described process. Or code that implements a described interface. If this was your intent, I'll take the blame for misunderstanding. But I caution the use of phrases like "the same code" when you actually mean new code that implements the same process.

crucialfelix 8y ago
I mean new code that implements the same process. But in reality I mean people who take code and rewrite it just enough to obscure where it came from. It is totally disingenuous and immoral and all too common.
karlerss 8y ago
Somewhat related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Q... > narrator/reviewer considers Menard's fragmentary Quixote (which is line-for-line identical to the original) to be much richer in allusion than Cervantes's "original" work because Menard's must be considered in light of world events since 1602.