I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not how copyright works. It’s perfectly legal to create exactly the same image that someone else made… as long as you didn’t copy their image.

    • catcarlson@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True, but that assumes that the people filing copyright lawsuits know the law and are acting in good faith. And that the recipient does, too.

      If I’m an artist living paycheck-to-paycheck and I get a copyright-related cease-and-desist, I probably won’t have the money or time to fight it even if I know that it’s wrong.

      • Pigeon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. In a world where lawyers cost money, corporations can and will squash small artists without hesitation, with cease and desists, DMCA takedowns via youtube and similar platforms, and by threatening lawsuits they won’t even have to persue because most people can’t afford to fight it.

        Even companies often can’t afford to fight bigger companies. Like, the makers of Kimba the White Lion had a very clear case that Disney plagiarized them in making The Lion King (if you go on youtube you can find shot-for-shot scene comparisons, it’s bonkers) but couldn’t afford to fight it at all. And that was a company - individual artists have no chance vs disney & etc.