4 ms·

AI isn't creating faithful reproductions of artwork. It's creating strange remixes of prior work without the artist's input or consent.

threatofrain 3y ago
I thought it's blatant copying that is objectionable in the artistic industries where remixing is everywhere. Also, where does consent go into this? Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo?
- vlunkr 3y ago
  > Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? We have developed Fair Use laws over many years and many court cases to answer these kinds of questions. AI tools presently don't understand or care about that.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    I don't see why ML tools need to understand this from the law's perspective. The publisher & content producer already has responsibility to verify. There are already tools that allow an author or artist to sue if the work is too similar, or to request a publisher to do a takedown. If generative ML cannot sufficiently distinguish itself from a blatant copying machine, then we already have a system in place to deal with that problem. But there seems to be the real possibility that ML tools can create art that's sufficiently different, and the degree to which they can generate sufficiently new art is the degree to which they warrant a new policy framework. IMO the question of an artist's copyright ownership is the wrong framing here with regards to fear of ML. If self driving technology gets better, taxi and truck drivers do not have any informal or formal ownership over the art of driving, but they have the same fear.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Ironically, published remixes of original works (specifically, music remixes) pay a large portion of their revenue to the original artists. > Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? You'd probably be fine, but Nike's lawyers could bleed your pocketbook dry to find out. Fair Use being a subjective thing and all.
marssaxman 3y ago
Sounds like the everyday job of a club DJ!
cbozeman 3y ago
Which is even better, and not at all a problem. I don't have to consult with Walt Whitman to write a poem in his style, and nor should I. I don't have to get consent from Slash to shred on my guitar in his style, and nor should I. All of human endeavour has been the result of one ape looking at what another ape is doing, saying, "Me like! Me do too!" and then a third ape looking at them both and saying, "Me also like! Me do too, but do little different!" We're entering the next era of our evolution, people... and its going to be guided and shaped and molded by our technology, just like every other major era of our evolution... from fire, to metallurgy, to the printing press, to the transistor... we're just in the next phase, and like every other phase, a lot of people stand to lose - but many more stand to gain.

threatofrain 3y ago

I thought it's blatant copying that is objectionable in the artistic industries where remixing is everywhere. Also, where does consent go into this? Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo?

vlunkr 3y ago
> Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? We have developed Fair Use laws over many years and many court cases to answer these kinds of questions. AI tools presently don't understand or care about that.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  I don't see why ML tools need to understand this from the law's perspective. The publisher & content producer already has responsibility to verify. There are already tools that allow an author or artist to sue if the work is too similar, or to request a publisher to do a takedown. If generative ML cannot sufficiently distinguish itself from a blatant copying machine, then we already have a system in place to deal with that problem. But there seems to be the real possibility that ML tools can create art that's sufficiently different, and the degree to which they can generate sufficiently new art is the degree to which they warrant a new policy framework. IMO the question of an artist's copyright ownership is the wrong framing here with regards to fear of ML. If self driving technology gets better, taxi and truck drivers do not have any informal or formal ownership over the art of driving, but they have the same fear.
falcolas 3y ago
Ironically, published remixes of original works (specifically, music remixes) pay a large portion of their revenue to the original artists. > Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? You'd probably be fine, but Nike's lawyers could bleed your pocketbook dry to find out. Fair Use being a subjective thing and all.

marssaxman 3y ago

Sounds like the everyday job of a club DJ!

cbozeman 3y ago

Which is even better, and not at all a problem. I don't have to consult with Walt Whitman to write a poem in his style, and nor should I. I don't have to get consent from Slash to shred on my guitar in his style, and nor should I. All of human endeavour has been the result of one ape looking at what another ape is doing, saying, "Me like! Me do too!" and then a third ape looking at them both and saying, "Me also like! Me do too, but do little different!" We're entering the next era of our evolution, people... and its going to be guided and shaped and molded by our technology, just like every other major era of our evolution... from fire, to metallurgy, to the printing press, to the transistor... we're just in the next phase, and like every other phase, a lot of people stand to lose - but many more stand to gain.