5 ms·
So at what point is a painter too effective to be legal? Should we limit the amount of paintings that a single painter is allowed to produce per month?
by FeepingCreature 3y ago
So at what point is a painter too effective to be legal? Should we limit the amount of paintings that a single painter is allowed to produce per month?
- varelse 3y ago[dead]
- jonplackett 3y agoNot sure if you’re just being facetious but my point is that individual painters do not need to have limits on them because they have a natural human limit that stops them causing societal problems. What if da Vinci had been superhuman and could take on 1,000,000 commissions per day and had also taught himself every style of art and would do each commission for 0.001x the cost of anyone else. Yes society as a whole benefit from a fantastic amount of super high quality art. But the other artists are not gonna be so happy with the situation are they?
- nostrebored 3y agoSincerely — who cares? There isn’t a human right to make money from art. People make decisions based on what society deems valuable. That changes over time and has for the entirety of human history. Maybe there’s a demand for more customized art. Maybe spite patronage will make a comeback. Anyone telling you they know how it will shake out is a fraud. But the incentives we’ve set up have a natural push and pull to get people to do what society values.
- cycomanic 3y agoIt's funny all you guys arguing there isn't a right/law to make money from art. What do you think copyright is? The issue is that all these models were trained in blatant violation of copyright. And before you say they just take inspiration, that's the same argument as saying when I copy a movie to my harddrive it's the same remembering. It's not and a computer is not a human.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoHey, don't look at me, I voted Pirates. - So yeah, I am skeptical of copyright too, and for the same reason.