3 ms·

The law hasn't caught up, and might never do. But surely a generator that even sometimes inputs the artists' signature (or at least a bizarro version of it) in

by Bakary 4y ago

The law hasn't caught up, and might never do. But surely a generator that even sometimes inputs the artists' signature (or at least a bizarro version of it) in the output meets the spirit if not the letter of what copyright law is trying to achieve? At the very least you have artists in a more precarious position than they were before.

O__________O 4y ago
Copyright law allows for transformative use, signature alone in some from would not negate the work being transformative. If it was claimed to be work of art by an artist associated with a signature, that would be fraud, which is completely different. If signature was trademarked, that might be another basis for legal claims, but unrelated to copyright.
- Bakary 4y ago
  Again, I am aware that legally there's nothing they can do, but the point of copyright law is to facilitate making a living from art (let's ignore the House of Mouse shenanigans for the sake of the argument). A service that is able to pop out a new piece that will be indistinguishable from the artist's style is going to be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of artists around the world. We can't hide, at least not in good faith, behind the concept of 'transformative' art. Besides, there clearly hasn't been enough time for the legal system to catch up so arguments about the letter of the law might change too. If you look at musical cases you'll be surprised to see that the 'transformative' part is up to interpretation. Just ask the Verve...
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Copyright law protects finished works of art. It does not protect things like facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct. And legal system is up to date in any material matter related to the topic. If is not, you not only need to provide a specific notable claim, but back it up with evidence to support it and state why it’s not addressed by current legal code, case law, etc.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      Well it looks as though some actors such as Bruce Willis have already signed away their deepfake likeness and/or style, however you'd want to call it. Maybe additional legal concepts are not far behind? There was a time when copyright did not exist at all. It came into being because there was a need for it. Reddit-style argumentation about the literal aspect of the law is missing the point altogether. These new services are barely a few months old (or at least publicly available) and it remains to be seen how society will react. How can there even be case law if there is literally not enough time for it to appear? The salient fact is that the living conditions of many artists is going to degrade. If you do not believe that or do not care about it, then we can agree to disagree, but personally I think it would be better to alleviate that problem in some way and to nudge the law towards supporting this.
      - O__________O 4y ago
        You randomly mixing in concepts which are wholly related, as such, will not be replying to them; likeliness as a concept under tort law is basically unregistered trade mark rights, not copyright. You again refuse mention verbatim what legal issues are new that are not covered by existing laws. Law by definition will always have a latent space that’s beyond the law, it is called extralegal, and one of the many reasons in common law that judges exists. Something being extralegal does neither make it illegal, nor shows a law is currently imperfect. Laws and judges further do not represent some idle truth, but a system for bring disagreements to an end without the need to exceed the monopoly governments have on violence as a means of dispute resolution; which is why criminals resort to violence as a means of dispute resolution, because they are frequently unable to resolve disputes using the law. And then, you inject a yet another completely different topic, for which disagree, that being the impact of AI of professional artists, but as I said before, you lack the sense to understand your response are not in good faith, to me oddly argumentative, and wish you the best. Last comment is even against HN’s guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        Bakary 4y ago

by Bakary 4y ago

O__________O 4y ago

Copyright law allows for transformative use, signature alone in some from would not negate the work being transformative. If it was claimed to be work of art by an artist associated with a signature, that would be fraud, which is completely different. If signature was trademarked, that might be another basis for legal claims, but unrelated to copyright.

Bakary 4y ago
Again, I am aware that legally there's nothing they can do, but the point of copyright law is to facilitate making a living from art (let's ignore the House of Mouse shenanigans for the sake of the argument). A service that is able to pop out a new piece that will be indistinguishable from the artist's style is going to be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of artists around the world. We can't hide, at least not in good faith, behind the concept of 'transformative' art. Besides, there clearly hasn't been enough time for the legal system to catch up so arguments about the letter of the law might change too. If you look at musical cases you'll be surprised to see that the 'transformative' part is up to interpretation. Just ask the Verve...
- O__________O 4y ago
  Copyright law protects finished works of art. It does not protect things like facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct. And legal system is up to date in any material matter related to the topic. If is not, you not only need to provide a specific notable claim, but back it up with evidence to support it and state why it’s not addressed by current legal code, case law, etc.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    Well it looks as though some actors such as Bruce Willis have already signed away their deepfake likeness and/or style, however you'd want to call it. Maybe additional legal concepts are not far behind? There was a time when copyright did not exist at all. It came into being because there was a need for it. Reddit-style argumentation about the literal aspect of the law is missing the point altogether. These new services are barely a few months old (or at least publicly available) and it remains to be seen how society will react. How can there even be case law if there is literally not enough time for it to appear? The salient fact is that the living conditions of many artists is going to degrade. If you do not believe that or do not care about it, then we can agree to disagree, but personally I think it would be better to alleviate that problem in some way and to nudge the law towards supporting this.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      You randomly mixing in concepts which are wholly related, as such, will not be replying to them; likeliness as a concept under tort law is basically unregistered trade mark rights, not copyright. You again refuse mention verbatim what legal issues are new that are not covered by existing laws. Law by definition will always have a latent space that’s beyond the law, it is called extralegal, and one of the many reasons in common law that judges exists. Something being extralegal does neither make it illegal, nor shows a law is currently imperfect. Laws and judges further do not represent some idle truth, but a system for bring disagreements to an end without the need to exceed the monopoly governments have on violence as a means of dispute resolution; which is why criminals resort to violence as a means of dispute resolution, because they are frequently unable to resolve disputes using the law. And then, you inject a yet another completely different topic, for which disagree, that being the impact of AI of professional artists, but as I said before, you lack the sense to understand your response are not in good faith, to me oddly argumentative, and wish you the best. Last comment is even against HN’s guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - Bakary 4y ago