4 ms·

This is such a tectonic shift for what the concept of media even means that any assumptions are on uncertain ground. The courts could find that it isn't possib

This is such a tectonic shift for what the concept of media even means that any assumptions are on uncertain ground. The courts could find that it isn't possible to sign away these rights. There are many other rights that the law does not permit to be signed away for much more tame reasons than "enables further creations of 'your' work (or in the case of actors, literally 'you') not only without your actual involvement, but even long after your death". I would expect that it at least comes with a time limit. "Artists can sign a license to use these rights but only until their death + 10 years, after that the licensee can't use anything trained on their work. Artists also have an unrevokable right to cancel the license at any time with 90 day notice." might be one possible outcome.

alemanek 3y ago
That seems like a crazy stretch to me. Not a lawyer but the rights courts typically don’t let you sign away are things like your freedom. Signing away your right to profit or control a video you created is super common already. Content licensing is really well established and already allows for licensing for specific use and different royalty structures based on usage. An example of this is streaming vs theater vs syndication. So, now there is a new venue to take into account and have the lawyers add a few pages to their contracts moving forward.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  >courts typically don’t let you sign away are things like your freedom. This is exactly my point. An AI that can replace you, personally, is closer to signing away your identity or freedom than the rights to display a specific already completed work.
  - spaced-out 3y ago
    The court telling an artist they're not allowed to sell their videos to the highest bidder seems like a greater infringement on their freedom. What if no one wants to pay for this person's videos except for an AI company? You're basically telling them they're not allowed to profit off of their work.
  - bongodongobob 3y ago
    You can't just make up new definitions of freedom, that's not what freedom is.

alemanek 3y ago

That seems like a crazy stretch to me. Not a lawyer but the rights courts typically don’t let you sign away are things like your freedom. Signing away your right to profit or control a video you created is super common already. Content licensing is really well established and already allows for licensing for specific use and different royalty structures based on usage. An example of this is streaming vs theater vs syndication. So, now there is a new venue to take into account and have the lawyers add a few pages to their contracts moving forward.

HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
>courts typically don’t let you sign away are things like your freedom. This is exactly my point. An AI that can replace you, personally, is closer to signing away your identity or freedom than the rights to display a specific already completed work.
- spaced-out 3y ago
  The court telling an artist they're not allowed to sell their videos to the highest bidder seems like a greater infringement on their freedom. What if no one wants to pay for this person's videos except for an AI company? You're basically telling them they're not allowed to profit off of their work.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  You can't just make up new definitions of freedom, that's not what freedom is.