5 ms·

It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval/agreement arguing that copyrig

It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval/agreement arguing that copyright is far too long. As I've argued in the past, I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I'd happily concede to some sort of renewal process to extend that period, especially if some monetization method is in process. Or some sort of mechanical rights process to replace the "public domain" phase early on. Or something -- I haven't thought about it that deeply. So thinking about that in this process: everyone is "ghiblifying" things. Studio Ghibli has been around for very nearly 40 years, and their "style" was well established over 35 years ago. To me, that (should) make(s) it fair game. The underlying assumption, I think, is that all the "starving" artists are being ripped off, but are they? Let's consider the numbers -- there are a handful of large-scale artists whose work is obviously replicable: Ghibli, the Simpsons, Pixar, etc. None of them is going hungry because a machine model can render a prom pic in their style. Then you get the other 99.999% of artists, all of whose work went into the model. They will be hurt, but not specifically because their style has been ingested and people want to replicate their style. Rather, they will be hurt because no one knows their style, nor cares about it; people just want to be able to say e.g. "Make a charcoal illustration of me in this photo, but make me sitting on a horse in the mountains." It's very much like the arguments about piracy in the past: 99.99% of people were never going to pay an artist to create that charcoal sketch. The 0.01% who might are arguably causing harm to the artist(s) by not using them to create that thing, but the rest were never going to pay for it in the first place. All to say it's complicated, and obviously things are changing dramatically, but it's difficult to make the argument that "artists need to be compensated for their work being used to train the model" without both a reasonable plan for how that might be done, and a better-supported argument for why.

Taek 2y ago
I find it unlikely that someone who was willing to pay an artist for a charcoal sketch would be satisfied with an AI alternative. You don't just buy art for the aethstetic, you buy it for a lot of reasons and AI doesn't give any of the same satisfaction.
- zwnow 2y ago
  I'm all for paying artists for their work. Unfortunately, same as tattoo artists, some just heavily overcharge for mediocre results (been tattooing myself AND I know a few things about art). Like, sorry, but if you want to earn money doing art, please be good at it...
  - RhysU 2y ago
    > Like, sorry, but if you want to earn money doing art, please be good at it... By definition, almost half of all $ARTISTS are worse than the median. Should that half not get paid for their time?
    - zwnow 2y ago
      Yes. They should look for a job that actually covers their lifestyle instead of crying about AI taking their jobs. They can always put in more hours and become better. I cant imagine they have a lot of paying customers anyway.
      - WindyMiller 2y ago
        What about the half of the remaining artists that are below the new median?
        zwnow 2y ago
        Should be good enough to alrdy have established some customers.
        flkiwi 2y ago
        The problem with that is that people aren't asking for AI generated images in the style of Raven from Topeka with an Etsy shop. They're asking for Ghibli. So the people whose livelihoods are most directly impacted are (assuming they're not centuries dead) the famous, talented, and trend-making artists, not the lower tier making bad Precious Moments knockoffs. Society's problem is understanding that not wanting to pay for bad Precious Moments knockoffs is rational, while not wanting to pay, say, a Studio Ghibli for quality, professional creativity is insane.
cannonpr 2y ago
Being someone who has paid a lot of attention to Ghibli, I wouldn’t say their style was well established 35-40 years ago… There is considerable evolution and refinement to their style from Naushika, to later works, both in the artistic style and the philosophical content it presents. I think allowing it to be fair game would have destroyed something quite beautiful that I’ve watched evolve across 40 years and which I was hoping to see the natural conclusion of without him being bothered by the AI-fication of his work.
- gcanyon 2y ago
  Yeah, of course their style isn't static, but I was taking Kiki's Delivery Service (1989) as a point where much of their visual style was pretty well-established.
  - cannonpr 2y ago
    I agree that some of his main elements were relatively set by then but others continue to evolve. Personally I feel that his work is entirely fair game after his death, by which I mean to say after the end of his journey that he has poured his entirety into, in terms of value to humanity and respect to him for that value I think it’s reasonable to respect his wishes during his lifespan.
xrd 2y ago
The Ghibli fight is the same fight that is being fought in the NASDAQ. That is to say, there was an established set of rules that everyone thought were fixed and now they are being radically disrupted. Both the creative industry and the general business industry are trying to figure out what is life going to be like with a totally different and fluid set of regulations, whether it be copyright law or tariffs. No wonder sama and Trump are so cozy. They both see the same legacy.
Avshalom 2y ago
>It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval arguing that copyright is far too long. Well broadly that's because most arguments about copyright(length/scope) are made against corporations attacking individual artists and arguments about copyright(AI/scope) are made against corporations attacking individual artists.
amazingamazing 2y ago
> I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I funny how people who say this kind of stuff are never content creators (in the monetization sense).
- bko 2y ago
  There are a lot of programmers on this platform (myself included), and I love that my work has an impact on others. I have a number of public repos and I have benefitted greatly from other public repos. I hope LLMs made some use of my code. I wrote blogs for years without any monetization. I hope my ideas influenced someone and would be happy if they made some impact on the reasoning of LLMs. I'm aware of patent trolls and know people with personal experience with them. So I generate a lot more content that the typical person and I am still in favor of much looser IP rights as I think they have gone overboard and the net benefit for me, a content creator, is much greater having access to the work of others and being able to use tools like LLMs trained on their work.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    posting stuff for free is different than selling stuff.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Programming, at least, is much easier to shield in a loose IP regime than art. You can ship only binaries, or even keep your code running on a server and disclose only the API. And likely, the company that pays your salary would opt to do just that. I can't imagine a similar way for an artist to distribute their work while protecting their interests.
- 6510 2y ago
  If you make a blog with nice original long form articles it may take much longer to gain traction. Reproducing the content in "your own" wording quickly gets fuzzy. I like the practical angle. Any formula that requires monitoring what everyone is doing is unworthy of consideration. Appeal to tradition should not apply.
AlecSchueler 2y ago
It's one thing to argue that copyright terms should be shortened, and another to accept that a handful of corporations should be able to forcefully shorten it for certain actors entirely on their own terms.
ben_w 2y ago
Mm. The arguments about wanting copyright to be life+70 have always felt entitled, to me. Making claims about things for their kids to inherit, when the median person doesn't have the option to build up much of an inheritance anyway, and 70 years isn't just the next generation but the next 2.5 generations. I don't know the exact duration of copyright that makes sense, the world changes too much and different media behave differently. Feels like nobody should have the right to block remakes of C64 games on copyright grounds, but I wouldn't necessarily say that about books published in the same year. From what I've seen about the distribution of specifically book sales, where even the top-100 best sellers often don't make enough to justify the time involved, I think that one of the biggest problems with the economics of the arts is a mixture of (1) the low cost of reproduction, and (2) all the other artists. For the former: There were political campaigns a century ago, warning about the loss of culture when cinemas shifted from live bands to recorded music[0]; Today, if I were so inclined, I can for a pittance listen to any of (I'm told) 100 million musical performances, watch any of 1.24 million movies or TV shows. Even before GenAI, there was a seemingly endless quantity of graphical art. For the latter: For every new book by a current living author such as Charlie Stross (who is on here sometimes), my limited time is also spread between that and the huge back-catalogue of old classics like the complete works of Conan Doyle, Larry Niven, or Terry Pratchett. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-ag...
jeffreygoesto 2y ago
I thought the US wants to re-industrialize now? Then 5 years is laughably short to protect your invest.
Workaccount2 2y ago
As you grow older and run through more cycles of general opinions, you realize that pretty much everyone is in it for themselves, what serves them best, and support what narrative aligns with that. 2007: Copyright is garbage and must be abolished (so I can get music/movies free) 2025: Copyright needs to be strengthened (so my artistic abilities retain value)
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  You forgot: 2024: What do you mean I can't copyright AI generated artwork?
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Correct. This is why Stirner is the best Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own There is nothing other than Egoism.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  Either abolish it, or make it stronger so it applies to everyone. (OpenAI included.) "Copyright for thee but not for me" is the worst of all worlds.
another-dave 2y ago
I'd agree with limiting copyrights but would do it based on money earned rather than time, so something like when you make $X million, the work becomes public domain. As a specific example — _A Game of Thrones_ was released in 1996. It picked up awards early on but only became a NYT best seller in 2011, just before the TV show aired. It would feel harsh for an author to loose all their copyright because their work was a "slow burn" and 5 years have elapsed but they've made little to no money on it.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >o something like when you make $X million, the work becomes public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting No, no metrics that can be gamed.
- gcanyon 2y ago
  It’s a super-interesting idea, but GoT seems highly cherry picked: the vast majority of all works would never leave copyright if the requirement was that they clear even $1000.
mrdependable 2y ago
This sounds more like a problem with you specifically not seeing value in art. Why would you want the incentives not to work in their favor?
sfn42 2y ago
Finally a reasonable take.
ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
> I think copyright should last maybe five years If we imagine for a moment that "copyright" is something that works in the interests of a creator, than 5 years is nothing. A painting can sit fifteen years before it gets to an exhibition with sufficient turn-over and media coverage to draw attention to. A music album can be released with a shitty label and no support, years later be taken by a more competent one and start selling. We're living in a world where worth art is constantly flying under the radars so limiting potential even more isn't helpful.

Taek 2y ago

I find it unlikely that someone who was willing to pay an artist for a charcoal sketch would be satisfied with an AI alternative. You don't just buy art for the aethstetic, you buy it for a lot of reasons and AI doesn't give any of the same satisfaction.

zwnow 2y ago
I'm all for paying artists for their work. Unfortunately, same as tattoo artists, some just heavily overcharge for mediocre results (been tattooing myself AND I know a few things about art). Like, sorry, but if you want to earn money doing art, please be good at it...
- RhysU 2y ago
  > Like, sorry, but if you want to earn money doing art, please be good at it... By definition, almost half of all $ARTISTS are worse than the median. Should that half not get paid for their time?
  - zwnow 2y ago
    Yes. They should look for a job that actually covers their lifestyle instead of crying about AI taking their jobs. They can always put in more hours and become better. I cant imagine they have a lot of paying customers anyway.
    - WindyMiller 2y ago
      What about the half of the remaining artists that are below the new median?
      - zwnow 2y ago
        Should be good enough to alrdy have established some customers.
        flkiwi 2y ago
        The problem with that is that people aren't asking for AI generated images in the style of Raven from Topeka with an Etsy shop. They're asking for Ghibli. So the people whose livelihoods are most directly impacted are (assuming they're not centuries dead) the famous, talented, and trend-making artists, not the lower tier making bad Precious Moments knockoffs. Society's problem is understanding that not wanting to pay for bad Precious Moments knockoffs is rational, while not wanting to pay, say, a Studio Ghibli for quality, professional creativity is insane.

cannonpr 2y ago

Being someone who has paid a lot of attention to Ghibli, I wouldn’t say their style was well established 35-40 years ago… There is considerable evolution and refinement to their style from Naushika, to later works, both in the artistic style and the philosophical content it presents. I think allowing it to be fair game would have destroyed something quite beautiful that I’ve watched evolve across 40 years and which I was hoping to see the natural conclusion of without him being bothered by the AI-fication of his work.

gcanyon 2y ago
Yeah, of course their style isn't static, but I was taking Kiki's Delivery Service (1989) as a point where much of their visual style was pretty well-established.
- cannonpr 2y ago
  I agree that some of his main elements were relatively set by then but others continue to evolve. Personally I feel that his work is entirely fair game after his death, by which I mean to say after the end of his journey that he has poured his entirety into, in terms of value to humanity and respect to him for that value I think it’s reasonable to respect his wishes during his lifespan.

xrd 2y ago

The Ghibli fight is the same fight that is being fought in the NASDAQ. That is to say, there was an established set of rules that everyone thought were fixed and now they are being radically disrupted. Both the creative industry and the general business industry are trying to figure out what is life going to be like with a totally different and fluid set of regulations, whether it be copyright law or tariffs. No wonder sama and Trump are so cozy. They both see the same legacy.

Avshalom 2y ago

>It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval arguing that copyright is far too long. Well broadly that's because most arguments about copyright(length/scope) are made against corporations attacking individual artists and arguments about copyright(AI/scope) are made against corporations attacking individual artists.

amazingamazing 2y ago

> I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I funny how people who say this kind of stuff are never content creators (in the monetization sense).

bko 2y ago
There are a lot of programmers on this platform (myself included), and I love that my work has an impact on others. I have a number of public repos and I have benefitted greatly from other public repos. I hope LLMs made some use of my code. I wrote blogs for years without any monetization. I hope my ideas influenced someone and would be happy if they made some impact on the reasoning of LLMs. I'm aware of patent trolls and know people with personal experience with them. So I generate a lot more content that the typical person and I am still in favor of much looser IP rights as I think they have gone overboard and the net benefit for me, a content creator, is much greater having access to the work of others and being able to use tools like LLMs trained on their work.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  posting stuff for free is different than selling stuff.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Programming, at least, is much easier to shield in a loose IP regime than art. You can ship only binaries, or even keep your code running on a server and disclose only the API. And likely, the company that pays your salary would opt to do just that. I can't imagine a similar way for an artist to distribute their work while protecting their interests.
6510 2y ago
If you make a blog with nice original long form articles it may take much longer to gain traction. Reproducing the content in "your own" wording quickly gets fuzzy. I like the practical angle. Any formula that requires monitoring what everyone is doing is unworthy of consideration. Appeal to tradition should not apply.

AlecSchueler 2y ago

It's one thing to argue that copyright terms should be shortened, and another to accept that a handful of corporations should be able to forcefully shorten it for certain actors entirely on their own terms.

ben_w 2y ago

Mm. The arguments about wanting copyright to be life+70 have always felt entitled, to me. Making claims about things for their kids to inherit, when the median person doesn't have the option to build up much of an inheritance anyway, and 70 years isn't just the next generation but the next 2.5 generations. I don't know the exact duration of copyright that makes sense, the world changes too much and different media behave differently. Feels like nobody should have the right to block remakes of C64 games on copyright grounds, but I wouldn't necessarily say that about books published in the same year. From what I've seen about the distribution of specifically book sales, where even the top-100 best sellers often don't make enough to justify the time involved, I think that one of the biggest problems with the economics of the arts is a mixture of (1) the low cost of reproduction, and (2) all the other artists. For the former: There were political campaigns a century ago, warning about the loss of culture when cinemas shifted from live bands to recorded music[0]; Today, if I were so inclined, I can for a pittance listen to any of (I'm told) 100 million musical performances, watch any of 1.24 million movies or TV shows. Even before GenAI, there was a seemingly endless quantity of graphical art. For the latter: For every new book by a current living author such as Charlie Stross (who is on here sometimes), my limited time is also spread between that and the huge back-catalogue of old classics like the complete works of Conan Doyle, Larry Niven, or Terry Pratchett. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-ag...

jeffreygoesto 2y ago

I thought the US wants to re-industrialize now? Then 5 years is laughably short to protect your invest.

Workaccount2 2y ago

As you grow older and run through more cycles of general opinions, you realize that pretty much everyone is in it for themselves, what serves them best, and support what narrative aligns with that. 2007: Copyright is garbage and must be abolished (so I can get music/movies free) 2025: Copyright needs to be strengthened (so my artistic abilities retain value)

UncleEntity 2y ago
You forgot: 2024: What do you mean I can't copyright AI generated artwork?
Der_Einzige 2y ago
Correct. This is why Stirner is the best Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own There is nothing other than Egoism.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
Either abolish it, or make it stronger so it applies to everyone. (OpenAI included.) "Copyright for thee but not for me" is the worst of all worlds.

another-dave 2y ago

I'd agree with limiting copyrights but would do it based on money earned rather than time, so something like when you make $X million, the work becomes public domain. As a specific example — _A Game of Thrones_ was released in 1996. It picked up awards early on but only became a NYT best seller in 2011, just before the TV show aired. It would feel harsh for an author to loose all their copyright because their work was a "slow burn" and 5 years have elapsed but they've made little to no money on it.

pixl97 2y ago
>o something like when you make $X million, the work becomes public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting No, no metrics that can be gamed.
gcanyon 2y ago
It’s a super-interesting idea, but GoT seems highly cherry picked: the vast majority of all works would never leave copyright if the requirement was that they clear even $1000.

mrdependable 2y ago

This sounds more like a problem with you specifically not seeing value in art. Why would you want the incentives not to work in their favor?

sfn42 2y ago

Finally a reasonable take.

ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago

> I think copyright should last maybe five years If we imagine for a moment that "copyright" is something that works in the interests of a creator, than 5 years is nothing. A painting can sit fifteen years before it gets to an exhibition with sufficient turn-over and media coverage to draw attention to. A music album can be released with a shitty label and no support, years later be taken by a more competent one and start selling. We're living in a world where worth art is constantly flying under the radars so limiting potential even more isn't helpful.