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

351–360 of 927 posts

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

#351

Post by jim-jim-jim »

mvdtnz wrote: post #221
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

I'm guessing you've never created something of value before. People are entitled to the fruits of their labour and control of their intellectual property.

If I paint a picture on a physical canvas, I can charge people to come into my house and take a look. If I bring the canvas to a park, I'm not entitled to say "s-stop looking at my painting guys!"

If you're worried about your work being infinitely reproduced, you probably shouldn't work in an infinitely-reproducible medium. Digitized content is inherently worthless, and I mean that in a non-derisive way. The sooner we realize this, the richer culture will be.

Really all content is worthless. Historically, we've always paid for the transmission medium (tape, CD) and confused it for the cost of art itself.

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

#352

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

Consider that one day you may wish to author a creative work and derive financial benefit from that labor. There is legitimate use for limited time ownership of reproducible cultural artifacts. Extending that to 95 years is the problem.

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

#353

Post by narcraft »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #352
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

Consider that one day you may wish to author a creative work and derive financial benefit from that labor. There is legitimate use for limited time ownership of reproducible cultural artifacts. Extending that to 95 years is the problem.

I wish to one day derive financial benefit from hitting myself with a hammer for 8 hours a day. Should we construct a legal apparatus to guarantee that I am able to do so?

Edit: the point I want to illustrate is that we do not get to choose what others value, or to dictate what is scarce and no one is entitled to make a living in a specific way even if they really want to

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

#354

Post by card_zero »

dcow wrote: post #334
awesome_dude wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Closed source - when was the last time your restaurant told you what was in, and how to make, your favourite dish? What's in Coca Cola? What are the 11 herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken? How do I make the sauce in a Big Mac?

Yes, and notably the source recipe can’t be copyrighted. Trade secrets and recipes are not copyrightable. That’s the point. We have entire vastly profitable industries built around protection of trade secrets, with no copyright in play. Competing to make make the best cola flavored beverage or the best burrito is a thing . Competing to make the best rendition of Snow White, is not . What’s the rub? They don’t seem th…

Snow White is not the best example, there are non-Disney versions, like the one with Sigourney Weaver and the one with Chris Hemsworth.

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

#355

Post by skydhash »

alphan0n wrote: post #341
rescripting wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?

You are responsible for the output, just like any other tool. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright. If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.

The analogies fail because the copyrighted material were not used for creating the copy machine, Illustration, or (maybe?) the keyboard suggestion engine. If LLMs were produced ethically, then the whole discussion is moot. But if the only way to produce copyrighted material requires being trained on copyrighted material, then...

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

#356

Post by imgabe »

rescripting wrote: post #228
armchairhacker wrote: post #190

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 styl…

If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?

The image the AI generates is not copyrighted (except maybe by OpenAI I guess) unless it ends up being an exact duplicate of an existing image. Copyright applies to a specific work. The character may be trademarked like Mickey Mouse, but that is a different IP protection.

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

#357

Post by VanTheBrand »

alphan0n wrote: post #341
rescripting wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?

You are responsible for the output, just like any other tool. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright. If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.

What if the ceo of xerox went on social media and promoted copy machines by showing how you could use them for infringement?

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

#358

Post by csallen »

api wrote: post #346
dcow wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An artist is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical (canvas, print, mp3, etc) product, no? What is different about the production of Micky Mouse cartoons? Why is it normal for industries to compete in manufacturing of physical product, but as soon as you can apply copyright, now you exclusively have rights to control anything that produces a similar result?

Let’s say I write a book or record an album and there is no copyright. How do I get paid? Musicians I suppose can tour, which is grueling but it’s something. Authors, programmers, actors, game studios, anything that’s not performed live would immediately become non-viable as a career or a business. Large corporations would make money of course, by offering all you can eat streaming feeds of everything for a monthly f…

1. There are an infinite number of careers that do not currently exist, because their business models do not make sense. I do not think it's a great idea to keep laws on the books, that limit the creativity and rights of hundreds of millions of people, just to keep a few professions afloat.

2. You greatly underestimate the creativity of a capitalistic market. For example, on the web, it's generally difficult and frowned upon to copyright designs. Some patent trolls do it, but most don't. If you make an innovative design for your website, you're bound to be copied. And yet many programmers and tech companies still have viable business models. They simply don't base their entire business model around doing easily-copyable things.

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

#359

Post by csallen »

kokanee wrote: post #158
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it. These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate Party's cre…

This is the exact opposite of the truth.

Look at YouTube. Look at SoundCloud. Look at all the fan fiction sites out there, internet mangas and manwhas and webtoons, all the podcasts, all the influencers on X and Instagram and TikTok and even OnlyFans, etc etc. Look at all the uniquely tiny distribution channels that small companies and even individuals are able to build in connection with their fans and customers.

There is endless demand for the endless variety of creativity and content that's created by normal people who aren't Disney, and endless ways to get it into people's hands. It is literally impossible for any one company to hoover all of it up and somehow keep it from the people.

In fact, the ONLY thing that makes it possible for them to come close to doing that is copyright.

And the only reason we have such a huge variety of creativity online is because people either (a) blatantly violate copyright law, or (b) work around gaps in copyright law that allow them to be creative without being sued.

The idea that we need copyrights to protect us from big companies is exactly wrong. It's the opposite. Big companies need copyright to protect their profits from the endless creativity and remixing of the people.

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

#360

Post by loki-ai »

drob518 wrote: post #311
Lerc wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference is if everything were freely available they may attempt to monetize the life out of it, but they will fail if they can't actually provide something people actually want. There's no more "You want a thing so you're going to buy our thing because we are the exclusive providers of it. That means we don't even have to make it very good" If anyone in the world could make a Star Wars movie, the…

I’m sure the best independent Star Wars movie would be infinitely better than what Disney has been shoveling out for the last couple decades.

Such a talented team would be able to make a great movie on the same theme.

Saying the lack of creativity in the industry in because we can't copy things freely is completely moronic.

Post reply on HN