3 ms·
Interesting, so you've given due credit and/or monetary compensation to every single photographer you've learned from along the way? Yea, thought so.
by dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y ago
Interesting, so you've given due credit and/or monetary compensation to every single photographer you've learned from along the way? Yea, thought so.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoI haven't learned from any photographers. https://people.com/music/pharell-williams-robin-thicke-blurred-lines-lawsuit-judgment-5-million/ https://people.com/music/pharell-williams-robin-thicke-blurr...
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y agoI'm impressed, never looked at another photo, just emerged from a blank room taking pictures having never seen another photo before. Just knew photography from the womb and came out with camera in hand knowing exactly how to work it. You are the one man who never had to learn a thing or rely on someone else or their prior works for training and/or inspiration.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoI've been playing with DSLRs for twenty years. I just fuck around until I have some rudimentary understanding of it. Just like how I approach anything else, including playing instruments.
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y agoYea, the only "mental gymnastics" here is the BS you're trying to pass us that your personal neural network has absorbed exactly zero input or observation from other creators/creations that influences (consciously or otherwise) it's ability to create and profit from works.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoStrange ad hominem. I capture what I see, more as a frame of reference for myself with location scouting and game dev. I take quite literally hundreds of thousands of photographs. It's 1 in every thousand that's worth sharing. I have zero interest in other photographers, I can't even name one. Whatever other people do, neat. I don't even consider myself to be a "photographer", but I guess with hotels and airports buying prints, that somehow makes me a professional. I capture what I like. There's literally zero other motivation behind it. Most of my income comes from elsewhere. I use a print-on-demand service. If I take a photograph of a sculpture I've made and that is then incorporated into another work without permission, that's intellectual property theft. A lot of the images are of things I've made, not just street photography or landscapes that anybody could go and take. If I write a riff in a microtonal scale and it turns up as a sample in a record, or is covered and released without permission, that's intellectual property theft too.
- jabits 4y agoMore than one person can come up with the same riff, right? If someone is worried about an original image, why not watermark all uploaded versions? If I walk about my neighborhood scattering paper copies of an image, and someone else picks one up to hang on their wall, did anyone break any laws (besides me littering)?
- hammyhavoc 4y agoWho says they aren't watermarked? These watermarks are showing up in AI generated art, that's a documented fact.
- trention 4y ago>your personal neural network More bullshit equating the human mind to an AI. Newsflash, boyo - humans are not NNs, there is no reason legal precedent should treat humans the same as NNs (and it won't).
- NicoleJO 4y agoComputers aren't people, so thinking they "learn" the same way or for the same reason is childish. In addition, only one of those things is capable of and held accountable for following the law. It's the law that matters here.
- andybak 4y ago> It's the law that matters here. So - keeping this argument purely in terms of IP law - can you explain what the case is for these images to have been illegally used?