4 ms·
I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- somerandom2407 2mo agoIs it fair to say, then, that artists who have trained on the work of prior artists should also not be able to protect their works unless they have directly received consent and have compensated all the artists whose works they have viewed and potentially learned from over their lifetime?
- harimau777 2mo agoThere's some big differences: Artist are human There is a dramatic difference between learning from or being inspired by an artist and incorporating it wholesale into an LLM Artists can use human judgement and knowledge of social norms to decide what art is or is not appropriate to utilize. (e.g. a painting in the museum versus someone's tribute to a dead loved one on DeviantArt) There's a big difference both in the amount of learning and the amount of output between an AI and a human. There's a big difference between an artist and a megacorporation. Andy Warhol did in fact compensate the artists whose work he incorporated into his art. So there is definitely precident.