4 ms·

if you create derivitave works of my projects to use in your commercial AI, you're still abusing my work for your own gain.

jncfhnb 3y ago
Copying a style is not a derivative work. You can copy someone’s style just fine. You cannot own a style. I’m perfectly within my rights to make art with your artistic style. And I’m perfectly within my rights to train a bot on my own works. So what’s your argument? What am I not allowed to do with this poorly conceived law?
- LegitShady 3y ago
  Ya if you make art to train sure because you own the rights to that art. If you take other peoples art without license as has largely happened, no.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Both of these stories involve using the art to the same degree. It’s just a matter of whether you needed a human in the middle
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      >Both of these stories involve using the art to the same degree "the art" -> the art you made that you have rights to use, or "the art" that someone else made that you don't have rights to use? >It’s just a matter of whether you needed a human in the middle No, your story was you made totally new art that you had rights to use to train your AI. It's not a human in the middle, its a human author who allows you to use the art at all. If the "human in the middle" in round two didn't give you the rights you couldn't use those either. The human is doing the authorship of the work and also allowing or not allowing you to use it. They aren't in the middle, they're 100% of the issue and the difference between allowed and not allowed, human authored or not human authored.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Ok so you’re 100% on board that humans have no claim to their personal styles. Cool. It’s ok to make a LegitShady bot as long as you can pay someone $30 to make a few works stylistically similar to yours? Because if that’s true, you’ve just agreed that the value of your creativity is $0. You don’t even get the $30 here. Nobody really wants your specific works, and your creativity will be freely available. In fact it can probably be synthesized with just a human and some simple tooling in the near future / now. Is that what you want?
        LegitShady 3y ago
        At this point its clear you are not engaging in quality discussion and this is a waste of time. Have a great day.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        I am. These are the consequences of your own rhetoric. You are ignoring them for cheap shots to take the moral high ground. You can’t just say “I’m the side of artists” and conclude that you’re doing good. Your rule set is VERY WEAK and prone to abuse. It will not meaningfully protect artists at all.

jncfhnb 3y ago

Copying a style is not a derivative work. You can copy someone’s style just fine. You cannot own a style. I’m perfectly within my rights to make art with your artistic style. And I’m perfectly within my rights to train a bot on my own works. So what’s your argument? What am I not allowed to do with this poorly conceived law?

LegitShady 3y ago
Ya if you make art to train sure because you own the rights to that art. If you take other peoples art without license as has largely happened, no.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Both of these stories involve using the art to the same degree. It’s just a matter of whether you needed a human in the middle
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    >Both of these stories involve using the art to the same degree "the art" -> the art you made that you have rights to use, or "the art" that someone else made that you don't have rights to use? >It’s just a matter of whether you needed a human in the middle No, your story was you made totally new art that you had rights to use to train your AI. It's not a human in the middle, its a human author who allows you to use the art at all. If the "human in the middle" in round two didn't give you the rights you couldn't use those either. The human is doing the authorship of the work and also allowing or not allowing you to use it. They aren't in the middle, they're 100% of the issue and the difference between allowed and not allowed, human authored or not human authored.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Ok so you’re 100% on board that humans have no claim to their personal styles. Cool. It’s ok to make a LegitShady bot as long as you can pay someone $30 to make a few works stylistically similar to yours? Because if that’s true, you’ve just agreed that the value of your creativity is $0. You don’t even get the $30 here. Nobody really wants your specific works, and your creativity will be freely available. In fact it can probably be synthesized with just a human and some simple tooling in the near future / now. Is that what you want?
      - LegitShady 3y ago
        At this point its clear you are not engaging in quality discussion and this is a waste of time. Have a great day.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        I am. These are the consequences of your own rhetoric. You are ignoring them for cheap shots to take the moral high ground. You can’t just say “I’m the side of artists” and conclude that you’re doing good. Your rule set is VERY WEAK and prone to abuse. It will not meaningfully protect artists at all.