Even_Adder, 7 months ago

I disagree with that article 100%. They’re missing the spirit of copyright law which is to protect artists that create original work. They already try to protect musicians and do this in music with sampling. But instead of one artist stealing parts of your song or the spirit of the song, they’re coming after visual art from every angle because it’s a computer and like 10,000 people doing that. We should be able to copyright our work and have to agree for it to be used, the end. It’s ridiculous and greedy of these huge companies to do anything else.

To quote the article:

First, copyright law doesn’t prevent you from making factual observations about a work or copying the facts embodied in a work (this is called the “idea/expression distinction”). Rather, copyright forbids you from copying the work’s creative expression in a way that could substitute for the original, and from making “derivative works” when those works copy too much creative expression from the original.

Fair use protects reverse engineering, indexing for search engines, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. Here, the fact that the model is used to create new works weighs in favor of fair use as does the fact that the model consists of original analysis of the training images in comparison with one another.

Just to be clear, I don’t give a shit about corporations, but what you want will hurt all artists and give corporations the unprecedented legal tools to take down anything they don’t feel like having around.

What part are you referencing here:

Also, how fucked up is it that they liken it to the little guy competing with big companies, that’s not a thing. If they used public domain art, I don’t think any of this would be an issue. Do we own our own voice, imagination, likeness? I say yeah, we do. The corporations shouldn’t have the rights to those.

I’m not really sure what this is about.