5 ms·

Yea, 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

Yea, 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 ago
Strange 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 ago
  More 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 ago
    Who 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).

hammyhavoc 4y ago

Strange 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 ago
More 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 ago
  Who 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).