...in the latest bullshit from the media oligarchy, another attempt at lawfare to stamp out competitors.
Ah... Tuesdaymassive violation of 1st amendment and utterly unenforcable.
Unfortunately, Adobe have a monopoly for many a good reason -- Photoshop and other CC suite apps are the go-to because they're very high quality and very capable compared to their competitors.
Yes, Coral Painter, for example, is better at painting realistic forms of art, such as oil painting, compared to Photoshop, but Photoshop is not only capable of painting but also editing, retouching, et cetera. It's basically an all in one, and even when an artist paints a concept in Painter, they typically port it over to Photoshop for use in another works and workflows and for advanced editing.
Photoshop is basically indispensable... which is why Adobe has the balls to try to pull shit like this.
Yeah, I remember a lot of companies from the 80's and 90's that were giants like Google and Microsoft that quickly died within two/three years, or they lingered on as legacy names under different brands after being bought, but Adobe is like Microsoft and Apple -- they've gone the distance and won.the grave yard of history is filled with indispensable companies, countries, and people.
Some maybe, some no. The patents/copyright office is also in the Constitution, so I've no idea honestly.massive violation of 1st amendment and utterly unenforcable.
...in the latest bullshit from the media oligarchy, another attempt at lawfare to stamp out competitors.
The AI is a medium, then those art works are samples used in a derivative work. No new legislation is needed.Eh, I'm actually in favor of them figuring out if X's art was in Y's AI model. Because using art in an AI model seems to me to be copyright infringing, in principle if not legally. I very much support artists needing to be paid if their work is used in an AI model.
Hmm, that opens another can of worms though. I always get a chuckle at the people protesting that AI is copyright infringement because humans create their art in the exact same way, they look at other art and incorporate the ideas into their own. If it's a derivative work for the AI to create a new piece after studying other artists' works, is it also copyright infringement for a student who studied other artists' works in art school? Or a writer who read something before writing, or an actor.The AI is a medium, then those art works are samples used in a derivative work. No new legislation is needed.
It's going to be used by companies to go after fan art, though.Some maybe, some no. The patents/copyright office is also in the Constitution, so I've no idea honestly.
Eh, I'm actually in favor of them figuring out if X's art was in Y's AI model. Because using art in an AI model seems to me to be copyright infringing, in principle if not legally. I very much support artists needing to be paid if their work is used in an AI model.
It's going to be used by companies to go after fan art, though.
There's also the prospect of art schools demanding royalties from their former students.It's going to be used by companies to go after fan art, though.
There's also the prospect of art schools demanding royalties from their former students.
Technical drafting is probably safe but I wouldn't put it past Autudesk demanding a cut of revenue from those who use their software on top of the already painful pricetag.
A rather hypocritical take coming from the self-admitted anarcho-capitalist.Eh, I'm actually in favor of them figuring out if X's art was in Y's AI model. Because using art in an AI model seems to me to be copyright infringing, in principle if not legally. I very much support artists needing to be paid if their work is used in an AI model.
I'm not backing the style thing. I am backing the use of the image itself in an AI model. That should dodge the fan art thing.It's going to be used by companies to go after fan art, though.
No. An anarcho-capitalist can definitely believe in intellectual property rights? Even Rothbard argued in favor of them (he argued against patents as they prevent independent discovery, but also that simply taking an idea from another without permission was simply theft. He was very in favor of copyrights).A rather hypocritical take coming from the self-admitted anarcho-capitalist.
That's probably been the goal from the start."Steal from the best" has been the advice of successful creators from time immemorial for a reason, and any law that prohibits an AI from learning from other words can be easily twisted to step on human artists as well, giving big media a dandy excuse to keep down the competition and wage lawfare against ideas they don't like.
Except what you're talking about is such a massive expansion of intellectual property rights, that it would allow corporations to own things like particular styles of art. Even if that isn't your intention, that's what you're arguing in favor of; that works that are so derivative that they resemble the original only in terms of its style, infringe on its copyright. Not exactly something that's congruent with the principles of a free market.I'm not backing the style thing. I am backing the use of the image itself in an AI model. That should dodge the fan art thing.
No. An anarcho-capitalist can definitely believe in intellectual property rights? Even Rothbard argued in favor of them (he argued against patents as they prevent independent discovery, but also that simply taking an idea from another without permission was simply theft. He was very in favor of copyrights).
... That's not what I was for. I was in favor of copyright infringements if your artwork was used for AI training, not for something vague like 'style'.Except what you're talking about is such a massive expansion of intellectual property rights, that it would allow corporations to own things like particular styles of art. Even if that isn't your intention, that's what you're arguing in favor of; that works that are so derivative that they resemble the original only in terms of its style, infringe on its copyright. Not exactly something that's congruent with the principles of a free market.
I'm not backing the style thing. I am backing the use of the image itself in an AI model. That should dodge the fan art thing.
No. An anarcho-capitalist can definitely believe in intellectual property rights? Even Rothbard argued in favor of them (he argued against patents as they prevent independent discovery, but also that simply taking an idea from another without permission was simply theft. He was very in favor of copyrights).
... That's not what I was for. I was in favor of copyright infringements if your artwork was used for AI training, not for something vague like 'style'.
Specifically, all that would be needed is a small change that says "Using an artwork to train a data model is a violation if one does not have copyright permission" or something similar, with a note that fair use does not apply to use in training data models (yes, an AI is transformative, but fair use is more for humans transforming a work).
Note also that I'd want the violator to be the person who created the model, not someone who used the model.