6 ms·

> I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. This still doesn't give you

> I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions. This still doesn't give you standing to speak on behalf of artists, and "because I know better than lawyers do" is generally a problematic form of argument. It continues to ignore the key people that matter: the individuals with the creativity and skills to create the content that started this whole IP conundrum in the first place. > I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself. This is a very one-dimensional view of what makes art, and how the broader community plays a role. I have no illusions about where I stand as an individual photographer among the multitude of photographers in terms of raw technical talent and capability. But I'd argue that you are deeply misinterpreting the implications of that reality, and imposing your own definition of value on a category of human expression that is by definition deeply subjective and far more complex than a simple formula of exposure and conversion rate with some resulting monetary return. > I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI. This assumes the only reason I would be upset is because of lost sales. I take photos for the love of it. I don't currently sell them. If someone else starts making money on my work, it takes on a different meaning entirely. And even if I turned this into a business, "lost sales" is still only one of multiple factors. Regarding prompts, how is attribution built in? Nothing requires an individual to reveal their prompts, currently. There are AI-art sharing communities emerging where prompts are held tight, because the authoring of the prompt is the only thing the "AI artist" brings to the table. Even if prompts were universally provided, that doesn't solve the issue of permission, or imply that this is automatically an acceptable form of attribution to all artists overnight. When video game companies use stolen artwork, they are ridiculed and derided for blatantly profiting from the work of individuals. Even if it was an honest mistake, this kind of misuse is always a headline. And yet, when we talk about a system that unlocks a seemingly limitless portal through which the life's work of every artist is made systematically available to the entire world without limit, with no consultation with the original creators, those worries about unattributed benefit just disappear. I'm curious how you feel about the video game scenario?

scotty79 4y ago
> This still doesn't give you standing to speak on behalf of artists Sure. That's why I don't speak on their behalf. I'm just voicing my opinion about harmful silliness of the scheme they allowed themselves to be coaxed into. > It continues to ignore the key people that matter: the individuals with the creativity and skills to create the content that started this whole IP conundrum in the first place. Silently ignored in lawyers arguments are all the consumers of culture. All the people who wrote the prompts and all the people who drew great joy from looking at AI creation. They'd get literally nothing if the case of strict copyright so their collective loss is great because they are many. > But I'd argue that you are deeply misinterpreting the implications of that reality, and imposing your own definition of value on a category of human expression that is by definition deeply subjective and far more complex than a simple formula of exposure and conversion rate with some resulting monetary return. Sure, opinions may vary. Only actual data can resolve who's wrong. And the number for compensation of artists in copyright industry are not great when compared to viral gains from attention based, open economy. > If someone else starts making money on my work, it takes on a different meaning entirely. If you haven't lost anything why do you care? Why do you want to devoid others of joy they draw from availability of artwork? > Regarding prompts, how is attribution built in? Nothing requires an individual to reveal their prompts, currently. It's the internet. People talk. Nothing stays secret. And at any point in time original artist or their fan can chip in and say, "yeah, that's exactly like mine, see?". And no-one can do anything about it. > When video game companies use stolen artwork, they are ridiculed and derided for blatantly profiting from the work of individuals. Even if it was an honest mistake, this kind of misuse is always a headline. Yeah. Using AI artwork in a very specific style would generate same kind of news. And those games are not very good and they don't make much money. So not only there's no harm, severe ostracism. There's also not much opportunity to have any gain if copyright was strictly observed. And as you noticed it already happens. Darkest Dungeon had very fresh and attractive art-style. Now it's very easy to randomly encounter in Play Store cheap clicker games blatantly ripping off that esthetics. It's not directly stolen, but it's pretty much what AI would do if someone was hell bent on replicating the esthetics. Yet humans did it. What's the loss to Darkest Dungeon graphic designer? Exactly zero. And I think games that would start with AI art and got really popular ... they'd invite original artist for DLC or to get on the news or for just good will of the public. Public relationships is very important when selling games.

scotty79 4y ago

> This still doesn't give you standing to speak on behalf of artists Sure. That's why I don't speak on their behalf. I'm just voicing my opinion about harmful silliness of the scheme they allowed themselves to be coaxed into. > It continues to ignore the key people that matter: the individuals with the creativity and skills to create the content that started this whole IP conundrum in the first place. Silently ignored in lawyers arguments are all the consumers of culture. All the people who wrote the prompts and all the people who drew great joy from looking at AI creation. They'd get literally nothing if the case of strict copyright so their collective loss is great because they are many. > But I'd argue that you are deeply misinterpreting the implications of that reality, and imposing your own definition of value on a category of human expression that is by definition deeply subjective and far more complex than a simple formula of exposure and conversion rate with some resulting monetary return. Sure, opinions may vary. Only actual data can resolve who's wrong. And the number for compensation of artists in copyright industry are not great when compared to viral gains from attention based, open economy. > If someone else starts making money on my work, it takes on a different meaning entirely. If you haven't lost anything why do you care? Why do you want to devoid others of joy they draw from availability of artwork? > Regarding prompts, how is attribution built in? Nothing requires an individual to reveal their prompts, currently. It's the internet. People talk. Nothing stays secret. And at any point in time original artist or their fan can chip in and say, "yeah, that's exactly like mine, see?". And no-one can do anything about it. > When video game companies use stolen artwork, they are ridiculed and derided for blatantly profiting from the work of individuals. Even if it was an honest mistake, this kind of misuse is always a headline. Yeah. Using AI artwork in a very specific style would generate same kind of news. And those games are not very good and they don't make much money. So not only there's no harm, severe ostracism. There's also not much opportunity to have any gain if copyright was strictly observed. And as you noticed it already happens. Darkest Dungeon had very fresh and attractive art-style. Now it's very easy to randomly encounter in Play Store cheap clicker games blatantly ripping off that esthetics. It's not directly stolen, but it's pretty much what AI would do if someone was hell bent on replicating the esthetics. Yet humans did it. What's the loss to Darkest Dungeon graphic designer? Exactly zero. And I think games that would start with AI art and got really popular ... they'd invite original artist for DLC or to get on the news or for just good will of the public. Public relationships is very important when selling games.