5 ms·

you decide to put your stuff on Instagram, you don't decide to put your work in midjourney

by make3 3y ago

jMyles 3y ago
Is that boundary something that the internet is likely to be able to recognize or enforce though? In 100 years? In 500? What are we building for here?
- spamizbad 3y ago
  If the boundary isn't enforced you'll likely see art move increasingly to a patronage system, whereby a select elite will get to choose what art is suitable for your consumption. Maybe you'll like that, maybe you won't.
  - 8note 3y ago
    We have a patronage system today. See: services like patreon
  - godelski 3y ago
    > you'll likely see art move increasingly to a patronage system It is? But also this is dismissive without understanding either system at play. Traditional art has galleries because no one wants to buy art that they haven't seen. But this creates a problem if our galleries are on the internet. It no longer matters how much you attempt to stop a user from downloading or copying the art, they still can. We even see efforts to watermark art on public posting but we also see efforts to remove the watermarks. It's very clear to me that this is becoming a more complex time to be an artist than it was, say 5 years ago. Maybe better than 100 years ago, but that would be ridiculous to compare to as we'd have to get into an argument about the point of societies and if a goal is to make life better. Strangely this is something some in the NFT crowd were attempting to solve. We can all agree that there were lots of scams (I'd even say dominated by scams and grifting) in the area and that there was poor execution of even good faith attempts, but I'm just trying to say that this was motivation for sum. They weren't even trying to solve as difficult of a problem, they were just trying to solve the problem of proof of ownership. It's not like you can use timestamps or public/private key pairs for proof. It still wouldn't even solve the problem of redistribution or training. It wouldn't prevent someone from even buying the art and training on it even if the artist specified that that was against the TOS (a whole other philosophical debate about TOS and physical ownership that I don't want to get into). I think you're simplifying the problem and being ready to dismiss without adequately demonstrating an understanding of the issues and environment. I don't know what the answer is but I sure as hell know it is a lot more complex than "let the 'free market' run its course".
  - jMyles 3y ago
    I think it depends in large part on how the moving parts interact. If the emergence of automata and internet creatures also means that people can spend more of their time doing what makes them happy, and if people doing that results in amazing art and music emerging, then I don't think that the purvey of selection will be so dangerously cornered by an elite. But it's up to us to do the work to build that future.
- make3 3y ago
  you mean, is the right of an individual human to property and the rule of law be recognized in 100 or 500 years? hopefully yes, unless you foresee some inescapable transfer to dictatorship, which you'll have to argue for to maintain your argument
  - jMyles 3y ago
    I meant something softer and simpler, like power structures which somehow convince learning machines to avert their gaze when media from a forbidden domain appears. That just doesn't seem like the direction of the internet to me. As for the rule of law, it seems that what we're talking about here is what authority can be capable of supplying the law. I highly doubt that a confusing and contradictory set of mandates from nation states will continue to be "the law" on the internet.
wrsh07 3y ago
But sometimes your work is put on Instagram without your knowledge or consent (eg by an Instagram aggregator account) And this whole ecosystem of credit (or not sharing credit) is undoubtedly encouraged by Instagram (because it's valuable to me to have an Instagram account with many followers)
- freejazz 3y ago
  >But sometimes your work is put on Instagram without your knowledge or consent (eg by an Instagram aggregator account) That's copyright infringement. You can't claim to own other people's work and then give license to others to use when you don't own the work.
  - wrsh07 3y ago
    Of course it is! It being illegal doesn't mean Instagram is incentivized to crack down on it And if you're a tiny independent artist you also aren't well-resourced to do anything about it. (Afaict the best thing we can do is maintain a culture that demands attribution)
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I represent tiny independent artists and the best thing you can do is hope that some moneyed media company infringes your work. They never have an excuse and they always pay up.
      - wrsh07 3y ago
        But that's not what happens on Instagram This isn't like some TV ad using a song they forgot to license
        freejazz 3y ago
        I've recovered for uses on Instagram
  - 3y ago

you decide to put your stuff on Instagram, you don't decide to put your work in midjourney

by make3 3y ago

you decide to put your stuff on Instagram, you don't decide to put your work in midjourney

Is that boundary something that the internet is likely to be able to recognize or enforce though? In 100 years? In 500? What are we building for here?

spamizbad 3y ago
If the boundary isn't enforced you'll likely see art move increasingly to a patronage system, whereby a select elite will get to choose what art is suitable for your consumption. Maybe you'll like that, maybe you won't.
- 8note 3y ago
  We have a patronage system today. See: services like patreon
- godelski 3y ago
  > you'll likely see art move increasingly to a patronage system It is? But also this is dismissive without understanding either system at play. Traditional art has galleries because no one wants to buy art that they haven't seen. But this creates a problem if our galleries are on the internet. It no longer matters how much you attempt to stop a user from downloading or copying the art, they still can. We even see efforts to watermark art on public posting but we also see efforts to remove the watermarks. It's very clear to me that this is becoming a more complex time to be an artist than it was, say 5 years ago. Maybe better than 100 years ago, but that would be ridiculous to compare to as we'd have to get into an argument about the point of societies and if a goal is to make life better. Strangely this is something some in the NFT crowd were attempting to solve. We can all agree that there were lots of scams (I'd even say dominated by scams and grifting) in the area and that there was poor execution of even good faith attempts, but I'm just trying to say that this was motivation for sum. They weren't even trying to solve as difficult of a problem, they were just trying to solve the problem of proof of ownership. It's not like you can use timestamps or public/private key pairs for proof. It still wouldn't even solve the problem of redistribution or training. It wouldn't prevent someone from even buying the art and training on it even if the artist specified that that was against the TOS (a whole other philosophical debate about TOS and physical ownership that I don't want to get into). I think you're simplifying the problem and being ready to dismiss without adequately demonstrating an understanding of the issues and environment. I don't know what the answer is but I sure as hell know it is a lot more complex than "let the 'free market' run its course".
- jMyles 3y ago
  I think it depends in large part on how the moving parts interact. If the emergence of automata and internet creatures also means that people can spend more of their time doing what makes them happy, and if people doing that results in amazing art and music emerging, then I don't think that the purvey of selection will be so dangerously cornered by an elite. But it's up to us to do the work to build that future.
make3 3y ago
you mean, is the right of an individual human to property and the rule of law be recognized in 100 or 500 years? hopefully yes, unless you foresee some inescapable transfer to dictatorship, which you'll have to argue for to maintain your argument
- jMyles 3y ago
  I meant something softer and simpler, like power structures which somehow convince learning machines to avert their gaze when media from a forbidden domain appears. That just doesn't seem like the direction of the internet to me. As for the rule of law, it seems that what we're talking about here is what authority can be capable of supplying the law. I highly doubt that a confusing and contradictory set of mandates from nation states will continue to be "the law" on the internet.

wrsh07 3y ago

But sometimes your work is put on Instagram without your knowledge or consent (eg by an Instagram aggregator account) And this whole ecosystem of credit (or not sharing credit) is undoubtedly encouraged by Instagram (because it's valuable to me to have an Instagram account with many followers)

freejazz 3y ago
>But sometimes your work is put on Instagram without your knowledge or consent (eg by an Instagram aggregator account) That's copyright infringement. You can't claim to own other people's work and then give license to others to use when you don't own the work.
- wrsh07 3y ago
  Of course it is! It being illegal doesn't mean Instagram is incentivized to crack down on it And if you're a tiny independent artist you also aren't well-resourced to do anything about it. (Afaict the best thing we can do is maintain a culture that demands attribution)
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I represent tiny independent artists and the best thing you can do is hope that some moneyed media company infringes your work. They never have an excuse and they always pay up.
    - wrsh07 3y ago
      But that's not what happens on Instagram This isn't like some TV ad using a song they forgot to license
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I've recovered for uses on Instagram
- 3y ago