8 ms·

The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perce

The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perceived abstract unfairness of the situation, where the AI companies aren't copy-pasting the works per-se with each generation, but rather "taking" the "sweat of the brow" of those artists. You can agree or not about this being an actual problem, but that's where the main claim is.

wnevets 1y ago
> would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
  - wnevets 1y ago
    Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
    - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
      That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
      - wnevets 1y ago
        > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
        All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws. All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws. Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        My point is that the kind of IP at issue in this post and discussion is copyright, not personality rights. If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > . If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art. This article is literally about the copyright office finding AI companies violating copyright law by training their models on copyrighted material. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.

wnevets 1y ago

> would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
- wnevets 1y ago
  Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
  - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
    - wnevets 1y ago
      > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
      - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
        All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws. All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws. Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        My point is that the kind of IP at issue in this post and discussion is copyright, not personality rights. If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > . If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art. This article is literally about the copyright office finding AI companies violating copyright law by training their models on copyrighted material. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.