4 ms·
> No, they use it on an ongoing basis to serve their customers, so recurring payments are appropriate Imagine that I pay for and listen to some AC/DC and some
by polski-g 3y ago
> No, they use it on an ongoing basis to serve their customers, so recurring payments are appropriate
Imagine that I pay for and listen to some AC/DC and some Metallica, and then compose a new rock song inspired by those bands. Should those bands receive royalties from my new song? Of course not.
What if I drove through a neighborhood and was inspired by the architecture of the houses. So I go home and design my dream home based on some things derived from said neighborhood. Should every architect in that neighborhood receive royalties from my new house? Of course not.
What about if I taste 10 different cakes and design a new cake recipe inspired by (but not a direct clone of) the original cakes. Should they get royalties? Of course not.
If I painted a portrait of a woman who seemingly looks at the viewer, should the Mona Lisa rightsholder get royalties? Of course not.
So why is the MidJourney situation any different?
- mistrial9 3y agothirty-five times in the last four weeks on front-page YNews stories, the reply has been available .. so, here is thirty-six .. "because doing computer programming at scale, with millions of inputs, is not the same thing as a person learning a skill, doing that skill, and having legal rights to their own works" secondly, if you count the major economies of the world, each major economy has a different, negotiated settlement regarding the legal rights of creative authors. These are legal outcomes of a thousand years of social evolution. The laws are quite different.