Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
AI art is a turn off for me. Not just for how it looks, but how it disrespects the works of millions of artists and its users complete disregard to their welfare.
Just think of all those copyists the printing press put out of work. We should have abolished the printing press and gone back to hand copying.
It is unlawful to copy, reproduce, and or distribute copyrighted works using a printing press without the express permission of the author or creator.
Unless of course the author made it before an arbitrary date in time, or if they failed to follow every single rule required to copyright it, or if they were a citizen of a country that didn't have a treaty in place, or if the owner is a corporation and it hasn't been a billion years since the author died, or if the estate of the author was split between more than one person and a subset agrees but the others do not...
That's the thing with this crap. It is all based on what the very wealthy wanted not based on what helped artists and not based on what made sense. So of course the Church of Scientology can keep religious texts away from the public, of course Disney will always own Mickey Mouse, of course some small poor culture doesn't have a right to a single dime from the marketing of their heritage, off course the general public doesn't have a right to their own culture, and of course it is perfectly fine to endlessly sell something you didn't create because the publisher messed up a word in a legal blurb.
It's a shit system and I won't defend a shit system. I wonder why you do.
Because I empathize with people who’ve spent their life learning a trade, honing a skill that are facing poverty because people have found a turbo charged way to steal their work and not pay them.
Right very noble of you. I mean that in a non-snarky way.
So let me ask you: under the current system are artists doing well? I just checked the BLS and simple math shows that 0.04% of the US population writes for a living. The country producing the most magazines+news stories+TV+movies+blogs+etc. only pays 0.04% of its population a wage enough to do this full-time. To give you an idea of scale 0.45% of the US population works for Walmart. Go to a Walmart and if you see 11 employees standing there there is one writer.
This is the problem with nostalgia. It makes you pine for a world that never existed to begin with. There wasn't some Golden Age where artists were free and paid well that we need to suppress tech to recover. Being a creative has always been a shit show. And yeah it sucks but it isn't like it didn't suck a year ago.
This is pivoting away from the issue: companies are training AI on professional artwork owned by professional artists without compensation, permission or attribution. The leaders of Open AI recently admitted that being unable to use copyrighted materials would mean they wouldn’t be able to offer a meaningful service.
They openly admit that they have to disregard the ownership of others property—that others spent their time to create and depend on for their livelihood—in order to make money themselves. That should be the end of it if we cared about the impact technology has on strangers we don’t know. Instead we selfishly say that’s progress.
If I copy your idea are you poorer in the same way as I take your tangible property?
You’re not arguing in good faith. We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about work that takes hours if not days.
And you are not answering questions