4 ms·

While I don't have a dog in that fight, describing the opponents position as being against Tintin "becom[ing] part of the shared treasure of all mankind" seems

While I don't have a dog in that fight, describing the opponents position as being against Tintin "becom[ing] part of the shared treasure of all mankind" seems rather unfairly dismissive. I would expect that most of those artists don't mind the journey into public domain. Rather, the are against large corporations hoovering up that treasure and regurgitating it with a profit motive.

Gormo 2y ago
So they don't mind work entering the public domain, but they do mind people making use of that work in an organized way after it has? Seems a bit strange.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  It’s not strange if you think how the worth of the images have plummeted down to zero, both emotionally and monetarily, in the last few years. I’m not an artist, nor directly in AI field, but it is weird how I have zero emotional response to any image I see, because I think it might be AI generated.
  - kouru225 2y ago
    the fact that you can’t enjoy a good image or not without wondering whether or not it’s an AI image is the problem here; not the AI
- mihaic 2y ago
  LLMs are not people, and some organized way are worse than others, yes. In the same way we defined "fair use" for those reviewing a movie for instance to be ok, but we don't find it acceptable to put 99% of the movie with a single comment.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    LLMs are tools used by people, like typewriters, paintbrushes, and other types of algorithm. If a work is in the public domain, that means that people are free to copy it, redistribute it, modify it, and create derivative works from it, using whatever tools suit them.
    - spencerflem 2y ago
      Right and sometimes thats cool and sometimes it sucks. Fwiw, I think its a tragedy that our great works of culture can be appropriated to sell Coca-Cola and merchandise
      - Gormo 2y ago
        Why is it a tragedy that people are using "our great works of culture" to engage in other activities within our culture?
        mihaic 2y ago
        You're asking it as a moral question, when I honestly care about the end result. And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > You're asking it as a moral question, I'm asking questions about what I could only interpret as a moral proposition. > I honestly care about the end result. You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something, whether it is the initial action or the consequences that proceed from it. But before we event get to normative evaluations, I'm trying to understand what the substantive difference in the two things you're comparing are. It's seems bizarre to consider something to be the cultural inheritance of humanity as a whole, and then complain about certain humans adapting it to cultural activities that you for some reason don't like. > And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. The vast majority of all creative work has always been a remix or reshuffle of previous work. When we were younger, and were being exposed to things for the first time, everything seemed novel and original. Maybe the first time you saw The Lion King, it didn't occur to you that it's essentially a rework of Hamlet, or you never counted how many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation were based on recycled plots from Homer. But this has always been going on. Sure, it's a little bit more explicit today when you are dealing with big Hollywood productions, since Hollywood has built up a large library of its own output to remix and reshuffle, and people do want to see new iterations of the specific things they grew up with. Still, amidst all that, there's a lot of novel independent creative work being produced. By definition, though, that's all going to be found in niches and not in the mass market -- but it's always been that way. We've also had a massive shift in the specific media people use to express creativity, thanks to the internet. Lots of small-scale independent work just gets self-published on YouTube these days, and doesn't filter through the mass-market studios and publishers anymore. Consider that the increased ability for independent creators to work outside the legacy media has the effect of also limiting the amount of novel work that the legacy media have access to. > There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades. And vastly higher than in previous previous decades. Compare modern movies to the stuff that Hollywood was putting out during the era of the Hays code. After the collapse of those restrictions, there was an outpouring of pent-up creativity that lasted a few decades. Maybe modern movies aren't as distinct or creative as the ones from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  What about that seems strange?
  - Gormo 2y ago
    Well, it's a fundamental contradiction, for starters. Public domain is public domain, as in out of copyright. You can't have something in the public domain, but still have its use be restricted.
    - Findecanor 2y ago
      The disagreement is not about what is, but what should.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        I'm seeing a lot of prevarication between the two, and a lot of taking for granted of even the existence of copyright, despite the it being a modern creation entirely of positive law.
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  Because a lot of interested people do not want the images and style to be destroyed by A.I. usage.
  - kyle-rb 2y ago
    The images are not destroyed, they all still exist. I'm not sure if a style is something that can be destroyed, but I don't think AI has done that yet.
    - spencerflem 2y ago
      Styles can absolutely become wack, if the context they're used in becomes wack.
    - Findecanor 2y ago
      I used to be a fan of Star Wars. Then Disney bought the franchise, and transformed it into something that a large number of fans, including me, did not like. That the old movies exist* does not redeem the current franchise for me. *: albeit in reality the original films are being preserved by fans and not by the official rights holder.
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        It's all relative. I thought Lucas let Star Wars wither for too long, extended universe not withstanding. Most of the Disney works based on it have pleased my family and I.
- jfim 2y ago
  Some countries have moral rights which are perpetual, and are meant to prevent works from being mutilated, defaced, misattributed, or otherwise could cause reputational damage to the author. It's not unreasonable for an author to want their creation to be enjoyed as it was designed to be, but not torn apart to be reassembled in different ways.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Quick, burn Picasso's Las Meninas! Burn iitttt!!! Velazquez would not have approved, I can tell you that!! Of course he wouldn't have approved, everyone can tell. /s Seriously, you can't and should not want to stop others from creating derivative works of works that are in the public domain. Sure, some such will be horrible, so you ignore them and hope others do too. But some will be creative in ways you could not have imagined before seeing/hearing/experiencing them.

Gormo 2y ago

So they don't mind work entering the public domain, but they do mind people making use of that work in an organized way after it has? Seems a bit strange.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
It’s not strange if you think how the worth of the images have plummeted down to zero, both emotionally and monetarily, in the last few years. I’m not an artist, nor directly in AI field, but it is weird how I have zero emotional response to any image I see, because I think it might be AI generated.
- kouru225 2y ago
  the fact that you can’t enjoy a good image or not without wondering whether or not it’s an AI image is the problem here; not the AI
mihaic 2y ago
LLMs are not people, and some organized way are worse than others, yes. In the same way we defined "fair use" for those reviewing a movie for instance to be ok, but we don't find it acceptable to put 99% of the movie with a single comment.
- Gormo 2y ago
  LLMs are tools used by people, like typewriters, paintbrushes, and other types of algorithm. If a work is in the public domain, that means that people are free to copy it, redistribute it, modify it, and create derivative works from it, using whatever tools suit them.
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    Right and sometimes thats cool and sometimes it sucks. Fwiw, I think its a tragedy that our great works of culture can be appropriated to sell Coca-Cola and merchandise
    - Gormo 2y ago
      Why is it a tragedy that people are using "our great works of culture" to engage in other activities within our culture?
      - mihaic 2y ago
        You're asking it as a moral question, when I honestly care about the end result. And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > You're asking it as a moral question, I'm asking questions about what I could only interpret as a moral proposition. > I honestly care about the end result. You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something, whether it is the initial action or the consequences that proceed from it. But before we event get to normative evaluations, I'm trying to understand what the substantive difference in the two things you're comparing are. It's seems bizarre to consider something to be the cultural inheritance of humanity as a whole, and then complain about certain humans adapting it to cultural activities that you for some reason don't like. > And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. The vast majority of all creative work has always been a remix or reshuffle of previous work. When we were younger, and were being exposed to things for the first time, everything seemed novel and original. Maybe the first time you saw The Lion King, it didn't occur to you that it's essentially a rework of Hamlet, or you never counted how many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation were based on recycled plots from Homer. But this has always been going on. Sure, it's a little bit more explicit today when you are dealing with big Hollywood productions, since Hollywood has built up a large library of its own output to remix and reshuffle, and people do want to see new iterations of the specific things they grew up with. Still, amidst all that, there's a lot of novel independent creative work being produced. By definition, though, that's all going to be found in niches and not in the mass market -- but it's always been that way. We've also had a massive shift in the specific media people use to express creativity, thanks to the internet. Lots of small-scale independent work just gets self-published on YouTube these days, and doesn't filter through the mass-market studios and publishers anymore. Consider that the increased ability for independent creators to work outside the legacy media has the effect of also limiting the amount of novel work that the legacy media have access to. > There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades. And vastly higher than in previous previous decades. Compare modern movies to the stuff that Hollywood was putting out during the era of the Hays code. After the collapse of those restrictions, there was an outpouring of pent-up creativity that lasted a few decades. Maybe modern movies aren't as distinct or creative as the ones from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.
marxisttemp 2y ago
What about that seems strange?
- Gormo 2y ago
  Well, it's a fundamental contradiction, for starters. Public domain is public domain, as in out of copyright. You can't have something in the public domain, but still have its use be restricted.
  - Findecanor 2y ago
    The disagreement is not about what is, but what should.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      I'm seeing a lot of prevarication between the two, and a lot of taking for granted of even the existence of copyright, despite the it being a modern creation entirely of positive law.
ForOldHack 2y ago
Because a lot of interested people do not want the images and style to be destroyed by A.I. usage.
- kyle-rb 2y ago
  The images are not destroyed, they all still exist. I'm not sure if a style is something that can be destroyed, but I don't think AI has done that yet.
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    Styles can absolutely become wack, if the context they're used in becomes wack.
  - Findecanor 2y ago
    I used to be a fan of Star Wars. Then Disney bought the franchise, and transformed it into something that a large number of fans, including me, did not like. That the old movies exist* does not redeem the current franchise for me. *: albeit in reality the original films are being preserved by fans and not by the official rights holder.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      It's all relative. I thought Lucas let Star Wars wither for too long, extended universe not withstanding. Most of the Disney works based on it have pleased my family and I.
jfim 2y ago
Some countries have moral rights which are perpetual, and are meant to prevent works from being mutilated, defaced, misattributed, or otherwise could cause reputational damage to the author. It's not unreasonable for an author to want their creation to be enjoyed as it was designed to be, but not torn apart to be reassembled in different ways.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Quick, burn Picasso's Las Meninas! Burn iitttt!!! Velazquez would not have approved, I can tell you that!! Of course he wouldn't have approved, everyone can tell. /s Seriously, you can't and should not want to stop others from creating derivative works of works that are in the public domain. Sure, some such will be horrible, so you ignore them and hope others do too. But some will be creative in ways you could not have imagined before seeing/hearing/experiencing them.