3 ms·
> is "yes, and?" It would be self defeating for artists. The same tools developed to scan AI art for copyright infringement will trigger on their own works as
by visarga 3y ago
> is "yes, and?"
It would be self defeating for artists. The same tools developed to scan AI art for copyright infringement will trigger on their own works as well. All "side inspiration" will be revealed, it will have a chilling effect on freedom.
Do you want art to be made of little islands of copyright, where someone staked their claim - nobody else is allowed to create? If they can own styles they can ban others from using those styles.
Let's explain it like this: in a system, a user has ownership over a few files. But from now on users will own whole extensions, like ".json" and own everything "*.json" instead of "myreport.json". They want copyright wildcard "*.©", it's a power grab. They want copyright to be more like patents.
- ben_w 3y ago> The same tools developed to scan AI art for copyright infringement will trigger on their own works as well Perhaps; frightened and angry people often can't see the consequences of the direction they're running in. But: if the effort is the point of art, then "proof of work" is how that goes down, not your scenario. Filming the artist as they put oil to canvas etc. > They want copyright to be more like patents. Not patents, trademarks. Patents cover novel specific inventions for a few years, trademarks cover anything that's similar enough it might confuse a customer for as long as you maintain it. And what I want is almost irrelevant, the question is the aggregate will of society. My preferences feel like they're negatively correlated with public opinion on the topics loud people discuss most.