• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    1217·
    1 year ago

    Zero art has been stolen.

    You cannot steal a jpg.

    And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      113·
      1 year ago

      And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

      Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        82·
        1 year ago

        You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

        The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

        The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          4·
          1 year ago

          You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

          Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

          he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

          I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

        • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
          34·
          1 year ago

          I do like your libertarian line of reasoning. If the law doesn’t work very well, it should be abolished. I’ve seen people say the same thing about the EPA and OSHA.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            42·
            1 year ago

            The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                23·
                1 year ago

                Are you a professional at making shit up?

                I’m an anarchist, I don’t believe in companies existing at all.

                • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                  32·
                  1 year ago

                  I referred to OpenAI and you shot back “people.”

                  But hey, if a joke finally got you to start reading the stuff I was writing…

    • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
      85·
      1 year ago

      It’s really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just “copyright bad.”

      It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.

      • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        1 year ago

        People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that

        • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          But isn’t it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it’s harming?

      • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while “intellectual property” is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.

        It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

      • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        1 year ago

        Um no, we’re defending actual open AI models, I couldn’t give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don’t.

        You’re actually advocating for the big corporations, what’s going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?

        • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
          43·
          1 year ago

          As long as you are willing to admit that you are okay with plagiarists like James Somerton stealing the words of minority authors and large corporations like Marvel stealing the content of small comic artists verbatim and publishing them.

          I’m not sure how that helps anyone, but you seem convicted in your absolutism.

          • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            1 year ago

            I fail to see what he or your comment has to do with Generative AI models, which is what we are talking about.

            I don’t think you fully understand how Generative AIs work. The input data is used in a similar, but far more rudimentary way, to learn as humans do. The model itself contains no recognizable original data, just a bunch of numbers, math and weights in an attempt to simulate the neurons and synaptic pathways that our brains form when we learn things.

            Yes, a carefully crafted prompt can get it to spit out a near identical copy of something it was trained on (assuming it had been trained on enough data of the target artist to begin with), but so can humans. In those cases humans have gotten in trouble when attempting to profit off it and therefore in that case justice must be served regardless of if it was AI or human that reproduced it.

            But to use something that was publicly available on the Internet for input is fair game just as any human might look at a sampling of images to nail down a certain style. Humans are just far more efficient at it with far far less needed data

              • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                Not all AIs do, the more “traditional” ones that you’re probably thinking of don’t. The ones that are generating text, images and video, however, are based on Generative Adversarial Networks a type of Deep learning Neural Network and those do learn albeit in a rudimentary fashion compared to humans, but learning none the less.