Comment on If Creators Suing AI Companies Over Copyright Win, It Will Further Entrench Big Tech
aibler@lemmy.world 11 months agoIs this because of your general anti-copyright stance, or is this specific to people selling things that some people think are likely to be used to make AI artwork? I mean, are you saying that anyone who makes anything should be allowed to sell what they make and anyone should be allowed to share it for free?
What I am getting at is that you said anything made by AI should be in the public domain, so should prompts that a person rights (100% on their own) be considered “AI art” because they are likely to be turned into AI art? Or do you just think there is nothing special about AI art and all of everyone’s work should be in the public domain?
It would be interesting if we end up with lawyers in court arguing over whether or not something would make a good enough AI art prompt to be it in or out of the public domain.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Precisely. I do not believe that treating intangible things like expressions or ideas as “property” is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
This. I do not support copyrights. They are a blight on human creativity since the first moment they were put into enforcement and all they did is make non-artistic middlemen rich.
All these problems we have now, is because we are trying to shoehorn a 100-year old legal framework, created when people didn’t even consider something like the internet might exist, to generative AI. This won’t work. It will only be used to screw the poor even worse.
aibler@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Very interesting take, I was mistakenly under the impression that you thought that AI derived artwork should be treated differently than something made by a human creator.