←back to thread

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 3 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mlsu ◴[03 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43575950[source]▶
I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation.

Unfortunately, it's just the opposite. It seems most people have fully assimilated the idea that information itself must be entirely subsumed into an oppressive, proprietary, commercial apparatus. That Disney Corp can prevent you from viewing some collection of pixels, because THEY own it, and they know better than you do about the culture and communication that you are and are not allowed to experience.

It's just baffling. If they could, Disney would scan your brain to charge you a nickel every time you thought of Mickey Mouse.

replies(31): >>43576033 #>>43576035 #>>43576039 #>>43576072 #>>43576095 #>>43576129 #>>43576200 #>>43576201 #>>43576223 #>>43576381 #>>43576435 #>>43576475 #>>43576488 #>>43576594 #>>43576625 #>>43576663 #>>43576709 #>>43576768 #>>43576774 #>>43576782 #>>43576815 #>>43576826 #>>43576933 #>>43577120 #>>43577458 #>>43577553 #>>43577827 #>>43577984 #>>43578013 #>>43578038 #>>43581949 #
r0s ◴[03 Apr 25 23:47 UTC] No.43576815[source]▶
It's not baffling in the least.

No matter the extent you believe in the freedom of information, few believe anyone should then be free to profit from someone else's work without attribution.

You seem to think it would be okay for disney to market and charge for my own personal original characters and art, claiming them as their own original idea. Why is that?

replies(1): >>43576888 #
raspyberr ◴[03 Apr 25 23:57 UTC] No.43576888[source]▶
Yes. I 100% unironically believe that anyone should be able to use anyone else's work royalty/copyright free after 10-20 years instead of 170 in the UK. Could you please justify why 170 years is in any way a reasonable amount of time?
replies(3): >>43576938 #>>43577076 #>>43587961 #
codedokode ◴[04 Apr 25 00:06 UTC] No.43576938[source]▶
May I ask why you want to use someone's work instead of creating your own?
replies(1): >>43577146 #
1. card_zero ◴[04 Apr 25 00:37 UTC] No.43577146[source]▶
I mean, it's fun. Ever listened to the KLF, and things from the era before sampling was heavily sat on, such as the album 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) - ? I don't claim it's very good, but it was definitely fun. And the motivation for using existing works, instead of creating your own, is similar to the motivation for using existing words, instead of creating your own. They're reference points, people recognize them, you can communicate with them instead of having to extract patience from the audience like they have to learn a new language for each work. And of course in practice the rules are fuzzy, so everybody sails close to the wind by imitating others and in this way we share a culture. Stealing their work is just sharing the culture more closely.
replies(1): >>43577263 #
2. codedokode ◴[04 Apr 25 00:59 UTC] No.43577263[source]▶
> is similar to the motivation for using existing words

I don't think it's like that. If we take music, for example, the existing word would be a note or a scale or a musical instrument or a style, but a melody would be an existing sentence. As for sampling, there is creative usage of samples, like Prodigy for example where it is difficult to even recognize the source.

Also today there is some leeway in copyright enforcement. For example, I often see non-commercial amateur covers of commercial songs and the videos don't get taken down.

replies(1): >>43577351 #
3. card_zero ◴[04 Apr 25 01:15 UTC] No.43577351[source]▶
I put it to you that same difference. These matters of degree are what copyright lawyers haggle over. It implies to me that the whole edifice is forced into being, for its desirable (?) effects, and has no concrete foundation. Nothing pure and elegant and necessary about copyright.

Well, you asked why, anyway, and there's why: it's a natural thing to do.