• Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not only that, but their business model doesn’t hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was “free”.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        There’s also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn’t be a business.

        No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it’s the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.

        • NicoleFromToronto@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Businesses relying on free things. Logging, mining, ranching, and oil come to mind. Extracting free resources of the land belonging to the public, destroying those public lands and selling those resources back to the public at an exorbitant markup.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      This particular vein of “pro-copyright” thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

      Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

        You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.

        What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.

        That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

        Wrong in all points.

        Copyright has paid artists (though maybe not enough). Copyright was intended to do that (though maybe not that alone). Copyright does currently pay artists (maybe not in your country, I don’t know that).

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Wrong in all points.

          No, actually, I’m not at all. In-fact, I’m totally right:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

          Copyright originated create a monopoly to protect printers, not artists, to create a monopoly around a means of distribution.

          How many artists do you know? You must know a few. How many of them have received any income through copyright. I dare you, to in good faith, try and identify even one individual you personally know, engaged in creative work, who makes any meaningful amount of money through copyright.

              • meyotch@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                YouTube is not a legitimate source. The prof is fine but video only links are for the semi literate. It is frankly rude to post a minor comment and expect people to endure a video when a decent reader can absorb the main points from text in 20 seconds.

          • Leavingoldhabits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I know quite a few people who rely on royalties for a good chunk of their income. That includes musicians, visual artists and film workers.

            Saying it doesn’t exist seems very ignorant.

              • Leavingoldhabits@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Any experienced union film director, editor, DOP, writer, sound designer comes to mind (at least where I’m from)

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Cool. Name one. A specific one that we can directly reference, where they themselves can make that claim. Not a secondary source, but a primary one. And specifically, not the production companies either, keeping in mind that the argument that I’m making is that copyright law, was intended to protect those who control the means of production and the production system itself. Not the artists.

                  The artists I know, and I know several. They make their money the way almost all people make money, by contracting for their time and services, or through selling tickets and merchandise, and through patreon subscriptions: in other words, the way artists and creatives have always made their money. The “product” in the sense of their music or art being a product, is given away practically for free. In fact, actually for free in the case of the most successful artists I know personally. If they didn’t give this “product” of their creativity away for free, they would not be able to survive.

                  There is practically 0 revenue through copyright. Production companies like Universal make money through copyright. Copyright was also built, and historically based intended for, and is currently used for, the protection of production systems: not artists.

                  • Leavingoldhabits@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    I don’t know where you are, but here in Norway, people tend to get paid when their work is used for commercial or entertainment purposes.

                    Of course, very few can live off of royalties alone, but a lot of artists get a considerable amount income from their previous works.

                    (Edited in total, I matched the anger I felt from what I was answering to, and decided to moderate)

          • superkret@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I know several artists living off of selling their copyrighted work, and no one in the history of the Internet has ever watched a 55 minute YouTube video someone linked to support their argument.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Cool. What artist?

              Edit because I didn’t read the second half of your comment. If you are too up-your-own ass and anti-intellectual to educate yourself on this matter, maybe just don’t have an opinion.