Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#181

Post by jfim »

fragmede wrote: post #165
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with stifling innovation. I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write). Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...

JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not stifling?

The same analogy could be applied to business though. Some Colonel invented a fried chicken recipe and started a chain of restaurants, now he doesn't need to work anymore.

In my opinion, if someone creates something that has value for a lot of people, they should get rewarded for it.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#182

Post by belorn »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #94
teddyh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people at large companies creating these AI models, wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it, but these large companies also want to keep copyright protection intact, for their regular business activities. They want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for essentially eliminating copyright for their specific purpose and convenience, when copyright has virtually never be…

I don't care for this line of argument. It's like saying you can't hold a position that trespassing should be illegal while also holding that commercial businesses should be legally required to have public restrooms. Yes, both of these positions are related to land rights and the former is pro- while the latter is anti-, but it's a perfectly coherent set of positions. OpenAI can absolutely be anti-copyright in the se…

The example you gave with public restroom do not work because of two main concept: They are usually getting paid for it by the government, and operating a company usually holds benefits given by the government. Industry regulations as a concept is generally justified in that industry are getting "something" from society, and thus society can put in requirements in return.

A regulation that require restaurants to have a public bathroom is more akin to regulation that also require restaurants to check id when selling alcohol to young customers. Neither requirement has any relation with land rights, but is related to the right of operating a company that sell food to the public.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#183

Post by dragonwriter »

jMyles wrote: post #171
IAmBroom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, you're plunging deep into the ethos of IP piracy, and staking your claim that "None exists." If that is deemed TRUE, then there's nothing to ever discuss about AI... or animated pornography where a well-known big-eared mouse bangs a Kryptonian orphan wearing a cape. The reality of our current international laws, going back centuries, disagrees. And most artists disagree.

> The reality of our current international laws, going back centuries, disagrees Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there been _international_ laws regarding intellectual property for centuries?!

> Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there been _international_ laws regarding intellectual property for centuries?!

AFAICT, the first major international IP treaties were in the 1880s (the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property Rights in 1883 and the Berne Convention covering copyrights in 1886; so only ~140 years.)

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#184

Post by Wowfunhappy »

fragmede wrote: post #165
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with stifling innovation. I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write). Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...

JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not stifling?

...it's worth noting that J.K. Rowling is still coming up with new stuff. I quite like her ongoing Comoran Strike detective series. They're published under a pen name, but it's Rowling.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#185

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

fragmede wrote: post #165
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with stifling innovation. I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write). Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...

JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not stifling?

She comes up with new stuff all the time. She's had a separate career as a writer of thrillers, and is still working in the PotterVerse.

She's an awful person for other reasons, but that's beside the point here.

Reality is most trad-pub authors have full-time jobs anyway to pay the bills. If you're not one of a handful of publishing superstars, trad-pub pays incredibly badly as a result of corporate consolidation and monopoly dominance.

To be clear - there are far more people living parasitically off investments, producing nothing at all and extracting value from everyone else, than there are talented creators living the high life.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#186

Post by fragmede »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #176
fragmede wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…

The only people making chairs by hand today are exceptionally well-paid artisanal craft carpenters and/or designers/studios. It's not at all unusual for popular/iconic furniture designs to be copyrighted. Reality is people who invent truly original, useful, desirable things are the most important human beings on the planet. Nothing that makes civilisation what it is has happened without original inventiveness and cre…

You’re right—original inventiveness drives progress. But IP protection isn’t the only (or best) way to reward it. Removing it often accelerates innovation.

Look at open source. If Linux had been closed-source with licensing fees, the internet wouldn’t exist as we know it. Open ecosystems build faster. Contributors innovate because they can build on each other’s work freely.

Market pressure drives innovation. Reputation beats monopoly. Monopolies slow everything down. And collaboration multiplies progress.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#187

Post by chimpanzee »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #176
fragmede wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…

The only people making chairs by hand today are exceptionally well-paid artisanal craft carpenters and/or designers/studios. It's not at all unusual for popular/iconic furniture designs to be copyrighted. Reality is people who invent truly original, useful, desirable things are the most important human beings on the planet. Nothing that makes civilisation what it is has happened without original inventiveness and cre…

There’s plenty of people who create without external reward.

Or simply for the most minimal of external rewards: recognition and respect.

Or for the purest: seeing others live longer and happier as a result.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#188

Post by areoform »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #45

Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad. Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "rando…

Theft from whom and how?

Are you telling me that our culture should be deprived of the idea of Indiana Jones and the feelings that character inspires in all of us forever just because a corporation owns the asset?

Indiana Jones is 44 years old. When are we allowed to remix, recreate and expand on this like humanity has done since humans first started sitting down next to a fire and telling stories?

edit: this reminds of this iconic scene from Dr. Strangelove, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9B7owHxMQ

    Mandrake: Colonel... that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.
   
   Guano: That's private property.
   
   Mandrake: Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the President of the United States? Can you imagine? Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!

   Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?
   
   Mandrake: What?
   
   Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.
I guess we all have to answer to the Walt Disney company.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#189

Post by why_at »

bawolff wrote: post #145
why_at wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's fair, I'm trying to create an analogy to other services which are similar to help me understand. If e.g. Patreon hosts an artist who will draw a picture of Indiana Jones for me on commission, then my money is going to both Patreon and the artist. Should Patreon also police their artists to prevent reproducing any copyrighted characters?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works has some commentary on how this works you might find interesting

Thanks for the link.

I get that copyright is a bit of a minefield, and there's some clear cases that should not be allowed, e.g. taking photos of a painting and selling them

That said, I still get the impression that the laws are way too broad and there would be little harm if we reduced their scope. I think we should be allowed to post pictures of Pokemon toys to Wikipedia for example.

I'm willing to listen to other points of view if people want to share though

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#190

Post by armchairhacker »

You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops.

I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP.

Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any style. AFAIK the only things that can be restricted are methods to achieve the style (via patents), similar brands in similar service categories (via trademarks), and depictions of objects (via copyrights).

Note that something being "the original" gives it an intrinsic popularity advantage, and someone being "the original creator" gives their new works an intrinsic advantage. I believe in attribution, which means that if someone recreates or closely derives another's art or style, they should point to the original**. With attribution, IP is much less important, because a recreation or spin-off must be significantly better to out-compete the original in popularity, and even then, it's extra success usually spills onto the original, making it more popular than it would be without the recreation or spin-off anyways. Old books, movies, and video games like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Sonic have many "recreations" which copy all but their IP, and fan recreations which copy even that; yet they're far more popular than all the recreations, and when Warner Bros, Disney, or SEGA release a new installment, the new installment is far more popular too, simply because it's an original.

* IANAL, maybe there are some technicalities, but in practice this is true.

** Or others can do it. As long as it shows up alongside their work, so people don't see the recreation or close derivation without knowing about the original.

Post reply on HN