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

Sora Update #1

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 191 posts

Re: Sora Update #1

#151

Post by 47thpresident »

simianparrot wrote: post #90

> In particular, we'd like to acknowledge the remarkable creative output of Japan--we are struck by how deep the connection between users and Japanese content is! Translation from snake speech bs: We've been threatened by Japanese artists via their lawyers that unless we remove the "Ghibli" feature that earned us so much money, and others like it, we're going to get absolutely destroyed in court.

I'm pretty sure this is in response to the flood of Sora anime parodies that have flooded TikTok in the past 48 hours. Seems like OpenAI is acknowledging some strongly worded letters from anime rights holders rather than individual artists, or the response wouldn't be this swift.

Re: Sora Update #1

#152

Post by Terretta »

estearum wrote: post #144
ricardobeat wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often again…

Is that what they tell you when you’re standing in the gallery with a checkbook? Or in the boardroom with a signature? No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful ) 99.99999% of the time. Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or ev…

> almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold

Because most art isn't in a gallery or store. You quite literally aren't seeing it.

Re: Sora Update #1

#153

Post by Terretta »

estearum wrote: post #146
ricardobeat wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold; but that is not the main motivation behind making the art, where commercial "art" - advertising, mainstream cinema, pop music, most art galleries, anime, 80% of what you see in arts and crafts fairs, pieces in IKEA - is created w…

> Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility…

> nearly all of the art anyone sees

See comment above.

Re: Sora Update #1

#154

Post by workfromspace »

surrTurr wrote: post #92

> launch new sora update > enable generating ghibli content since users are ADDICTED to that style > willingly ignore the fact that the people who own this content don't want this > wait a few days > "ooooh we're so sorry for letting these users generate copyrighted content" > disables it via some dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm > dumb down the model and features even more > add expensive pricing > wait a few mon…

I'm new to Sora. Which step are we in at the moment?

Re: Sora Update #1

#155

Post by estearum »

Terretta wrote: post #152
estearum wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what they tell you when you’re standing in the gallery with a checkbook? Or in the boardroom with a signature? No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful ) 99.99999% of the time. Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or ev…

> almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold Because most art isn't in a gallery or store. You quite literally aren't seeing it.

In other words:

> Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.

Re: Sora Update #1

#156

Post by estearum »

Terretta wrote: post #153
estearum wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility…

> nearly all of the art anyone sees See comment above.

Yes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.

Re: Sora Update #1

#157

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

estearum wrote: post #156
Terretta wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nearly all of the art anyone sees See comment above.

Yes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.

Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.

Re: Sora Update #1

#158

Post by estearum »

WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #157
estearum wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.

Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.

... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe.

Here, I'll restate it:

> Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.

> Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

Re: Sora Update #1

#159

Post by martin-t »

1gn15 wrote: post #57
martin-t wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people who spend time working on code or art should have exactly zero protection against somebody else just taking their work and using it to make money?

Yes. (The "takers" also do not have copyright protection.)

So basically the only winners should be:

- owners of large platforms who don't care what "content"[0] is successful or if creators get rewarded, as long as there is content to show between ads

- large corporations who can afford to protect their content with DRM

Is that correct?

Do you expect it to play out differently? Game it out in your head.

[0]: https://eev.ee/blog/2025/07/03/the-rise-of-whatever/#:~:text...

Re: Sora Update #1

#160

Post by martin-t »

reorder9695 wrote: post #91
martin-t wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people who spend time working on code or art should have exactly zero protection against somebody else just taking their work and using it to make money?

No, but the current system is totally idiotic. Why not have a fixed timeframe i.e. 30-50 years to make money? Life of the author + x years is stupid not only because it's way too long, it keeps going until way after the creator is no longer benefitting, and it can cause issues with works where you don't know who the author is so you can't cleanly say it's old enough not to have copyright. I'm not sure for most (speci…

Then the solution is fixing the problem, not removing any protections at all.

In fact, copyright should belong to the people who actually create stuff, not those who pay them.

Post reply on HN