this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
7 points (73.3% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53958 readers
855 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The absolute right decision. Generative art is a fair use machine, not a plagiarism one. We need more fair use, not less.

[–] RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Gutless2615 corperations stealing artists work to develop their for-profit software is NOT fair use.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

You do realize individuals can train neural networks on their own hardware, right? Generative art and generative text is not something owned by corporations — and in fact what is optimistically becoming apparent is that it is specifically difficult to build moats around a generative model, meaning that it’s especially hard for for corporations to own this technology outright — but those corporations are the only ones that benefit from expanding copyright. Also, I disagree with you also. A trained model is a transformative work, as are the works you can generate with those models. Applying the four factor fair use test comes out heavily on the side of fair use.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not the right decision for the content creators. So it's not "absolute right".

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Expanding the terms of copyright to 70 years after the life of the author actually didn’t help artists make art. Expanding copyright to cover “training” will result in more costly litigation, make things harder for small artists and creators, and further centralize the corporate IP hoarders that can afford to shoulder the increased costs of doing business. There are inumerable content creators that could and will make use of generative art to make content and they should be allowed to prosper. We need more fair use, not less.