zlacker

So what is the end goal of this? For copyright to transfer every step? That precedent happens, then what? Licensing schemes get set up and any piece of media that is put into these systems will result in the artist getting some kind of payment in return. Cool, that sound great. Except... who's paying?

The conglomerates who already have a bunch of IP they can feed into those systems, who can afford to purchase or through brute force (ie cheaply employed artists) create new works using their already massive amounts of capital. These are the entities that will have complete and total control over the best versions of the tools that artists say will bring about their doom. You better fucking believe they'll have their own licensing system too.

Copyright is a prison built for artists by big business, successfully marketed to artists as being a home.

>>schees+(OP)
Mostly I agree, but:

> Copyright is a prison built for artists by big business, successfully marketed to artists as being a home.

I think (continuing this analogy) that copyright is indeed a home, but very few artists can afford to buy their own home, so they rent from corporate landlords, and the bigger ones are the worst ones to be tenants of.

>>schees+(OP)
So what is the end goal of this?

For lawyers to make money. That is the goal of much litigation.

>>schees+(OP)
You're arguing that artists have a shitty home, therefore it's not worth protecting as those AI companies are trying to take even that from them. And you're somehow trying to sound like you're pro artists in all this. Please, listen to yourself.

>>Viseon+Q91
I wouldn't try reading too much into the pithy poetry I added at the last minute to make a broad, perhaps not particularly clear point about how copyright has been twisted to only serve established conglomerates rather than individuals.

My main beef with the approach being taken by a lot of artists towards AI art generators, using copyright in an attempt to kick the tools in the shin (notably not actually kill it, only perhaps slow it down a bit) could set legal precedent that would make it worse for individual artists and smaller groups by putting the most useful and powerful variations of the technology exclusively in the hands of intellectual property hoarders like Disney. As opposed to a more open approach where the possibility exists for useful generators to exist for free.

I'm not anti artist, I do genuinely think that this outcome would make things worse for them and better for the companies that already exploit them.