this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
575 points (88.2% liked)

Solarpunk

5422 readers
77 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.


AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.

All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Unlimited IP protections only benefit the rich. If we return copyright back to its original 25 year limit, it would actually benefit the actual artists because the corpos would have to pay artists for new ideas pretty frequently.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I really hope more people start believing this. Our current copyright system has been abused and bought by the rich and screws over both consumers and small artists, but "copyright of any form is terrible" is harmful to artists too.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't care if it's harmful to artists. "Artist" is not a real job, it's something you nepo-babies can do in your free time outside of cooking McRibs or mining Lithium like the rest of working class folks.

I've never paid for digital content and I ain't about to start.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is a joke. It has to be.

"Didn't you know the proletariat is supposed to be miserable?"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Artists aren't proletariat if their job is "artist".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

IP protections don't protect anyone but the rich in any form, Disney have been caught selling T-shirts with art outright stolen from small artists online buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo and their only punishment was that they had to stop, no admission of liability and they got to keep all the money they made. Hell the guy who invented the underlying concept behind the TV never saw a penny because a radio company decided that it was their invention and managed to drag it out in courts until the patent expired.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Except when they do protect creators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._Home_Depot_USA,_Inc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns#Intermittent_wipers

Often times, when an artist get caught with plagiarism, the publisher drops them before it even go to court. After all, why would the publisher pay an "artist" who's not really drawing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnate_(comics)

Who exactly are you talking about with the TV patent? Farnsworth had the patent for the CRT TV and I don't remember ever hearing about a dispute over it. Also, dragging the court battle until the patent expires doesn't mean the offending company wouldn't still be on the hook for past violations. Something about this story doesn't add up.