3 ms·
Some licenses, like CC, have variants that prohibit production of derivatives, or prohibit commercialization, or require licenses or same requirements to be pre
by pxoe 3y ago
Some licenses, like CC, have variants that prohibit production of derivatives, or prohibit commercialization, or require licenses or same requirements to be preserved in derivative works. Sweet to see people "warm up" to say stuff like 'well it's just a derived work'. Can we get tech to actually respect the licenses of used works next? It's something that's been asked for all along. Without just going, 'well, it's all fair use' - 'so we'll just ignore all licenses and won't even try to detect or respect licenses and whatever requirements they have'. Sure, it may be "unenforceable", but if tech keeps saying "fuck you" to the creators, and "fuck you specifically to the licenses, we won't even look at them or process them" - creators will keep saying 'well fuck you too' right back.
otherwise, it's just talk with no follow through. just dropping words like 'fair use' as a 'get away from liability card', without actually engaging with intellectual property concepts. just to get to use works without respect to artist's will (as it could be expressed in a license), or sometimes even a mention, let alone "compensation" or other "consequence".
- jupp0r 3y agoDid you just argue against fair use in general? Everything you wrote applies to it as well. Copyright has limits, it's not like right holders get to determine what those are. It's a balance of rights of creators and users.
- pxoe 3y agois the use really all that fair, when thousands, if not millions, of works and artists get their works repurposed into services with "subscriptions" and "usage tokens" and other kinds of monetization, while directly competing with and against those very artists? or will it take until some markets would get completely destroyed and overtaken while people get displaced, for people to wake up and go 'wait, was that really "fair"? what happened?' and no, im not really arguing against it. fair use can be great. but shit like that, it's really pushing it to its limits on scope and scale of use and commercialization
- jupp0r 3y agoI think societies haven't really determined what is fair in these cases. To give you a counter example: Millions of young artists look at art museums and incorporate what they see and learn into their own art. Creators of the images they look at get nothing from the proceeds young artists end up earning later in their lives. Is this unfair?
- shagie 3y agoIt is as equally fair or unfair as humans who do fan art based on other characters or styles that they have seen and studied. What is the difference between a model creating an infringing work of Iron man when prompted to do so and https://old.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/search?q=%2Bflair%3AFan+Art&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://old.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/search?q=%2Bflair%3AF... ? After all, aren't those images directly competing with the artists of Marvel Studios and the artists who properly license it to create derivative works ( https://www.designbyhumans.com/shop/marvel/ https://www.designbyhumans.com/shop/marvel/ )? If we are going to say that creating images out of models that are training on something, then shouldn't clearly infringing works in the fan art category be handled the same way as they are competing with the very artists and companies who are the rights holders for the images and likenesses of the content?
- rrwo 3y agoI suspect that enforcement of licences will be based on who owns the licence. A large corporation? Of course. You're not even aloud to talk about the product without paying a fee. A small creator? Oh no, it's fair use.