I don't think I ever seen a bigger instance of people who usually vocally protest against orphan crushing machine advocate for the side of the orphan crushing machine.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think I ever seen a bigger instance of people who usually vocally protest against orphan crushing machine advocate for the side of the orphan crushing machine.
Precisely!I don't think I ever seen a bigger instance of people who usually vocally protest against orphan crushing machine advocate for the side of the orphan crushing machine.
I really hope tha they do this.
99% of almost everything is slop. Influencers take thousands of random photos of their lunch every day and flood the internet with it, and professional photographers don't feel threatened. And for some reason you don't see artists going "oh god I will never be able to draw cheeseborger that realistically, it's so joever"99% of AI art is slop, and if you feel threatened by it, you should look inward.
I do think there are valid concerns with this kind of thing, but I think these people are not acknowledging a very important aspect. Art industries in America were dying before the AI shit, it's just that this is more of a twist of the knife. These people should be angry at Disney and other companies for ruining the legacy of those who came before.99% of AI art is slop, and if you feel threatened by it, you should look inward. Twitterfags are just angry that they can't rot in their parents' basements while using the excuse that they're an "artist" anymore because their easily replicated "art" is being shitted out by a couple of prompts. Look at most of these "artists" profiles and you'll notice 9 out of 10 have art that could convince you there's one person behind all accounts the way they're so alike. They don't really give a shit about copyright infringement or creative expression; they're angry they can't bilk money from retards for easy & repetitive work. They want some game dev to pay out the ass for a shitty asset so they can pretend they're not wasting their lives online.
Also, the Studio Ghibli thing just shows how autistic and spergy these freaks are. I've never seen a group of people get so assmad about such a harmless trend.
I would argue that you’d need more than five years or a decade. 30 years at least, but not more than 50. Just look at Harry Potter, those books took about a decade for the series to conclude, and JK is still making bank on them, like Martin is maybe making Bank off of GoT (despite not finishing the damn series). Imagine being JK, you’ve written Goblet of Fire, and are a year away from publishing Order, suddenly now Harry Potter is in the Public domain. Or you’re about to finish the final Book, and now your characters are all in the public domain about a month before it’s set to release. I would lose motivation to continue now that anyone can just write an HP book.I don't mind IP laws. I think a man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow. Just make them actually sane. You get 5 or 10 years to benefit from the thing sprung from your own ingenuity, make whatever money you can, and then all bets are off.
If that applied retroactively right now, so many fucking problems would be solved. So many people would have access to do whatever they want with so much cool shit. People would be making unofficial sequels to things they loved and the best ones would rise to the top and get the acclaim they deserve rather than needing to hide in shady areas online because they infringe. Big companies like Disney would be compelled to sigh and move on to creating actually new properties and new ideas once they lose exclusive control over their creations. And think about what it would do for things like right to repair.
See my problem with that statement with IP, is that there are in fact multitude of labor that is not entitled to the sweat of his brow because his line of work is directly based on the work of others, or he cannot earn any profit because how the cost of his labor is inflated due to the licenses that he needs to deal with to work legally.I think a man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow.
By how most modern copyright laws work, she only loses copyright to the first book, if anything, a shorter copyright expiration encourages JK Rowling to expand her franchise and brand because only her most recent installments would be protected with monopoly protection. Because her characters are becoming public domain, if she wants to retain her large cast of characters under her copyright protection, she needs to create new stories and new characters, or evolve the characters in a way they become distinct from what they were previously. It seems like this is a good antidote to the nostalgia-pandering cultural recycling we are experiencing with our pop culture.Imagine being JK, you’ve written Goblet of Fire, and are a year away from publishing Order, suddenly now Harry Potter is in the Public domain. Or you’re about to finish the final Book, and now your characters are all in the public domain about a month before it’s set to release. I would lose motivation to continue now that anyone can just write an HP book.
I mean she isn't wrong, the dead internet theory is becoming more and more true everyday. Just look at the state of twitter right now that shit is filled to the brim with bots.Another artist complains that AI will somehow lead to the downfall of the internet. As if that's ever going to happen
Curious, since that's exactly what AI slop makers are doing. Make a shit load of AI goon images and capitalize off that in places like Deviantart or Patreon. Art troons could learn a thing or two from them, and by that I mean grift smarter not harder.they're angry they can't bilk money from retards for easy & repetitive work.
I've said a few times elsewhere but I think copyright should be short but only apply once the IP stops being used. If a company can prove that they're actually using the IP then they should retain the copyright but if they're just sitting on it then it should be free. So Disney still keeps the steamboat willie copyright that they've fucked over the whole system to retain, but something like Shrek would already be free to use. I just think copyright should start to expire from when you last used it instead of when you first used it, just at a much faster rate.By how most modern copyright laws work, she only loses copyright to the first book
Not saying you're wrong. But that's nothing new. Spambots on twitter have existed long before AI has. Even the things that people point to to say how AI has made the dead internet a reality aren't new. Boomers have been falling for obvious photoshopped shit in facebook groups for years. Indians have been hitting on fake images of women, be it art or photoshop, for years too. I'd argue that google and to a lesser extent shit like twitter and facebook are the ones most responsible for the dead internet theory just because most people nowadays don't go beyond those sites and they all penalise and bury any external links to other websites.I mean she isn't wrong, the dead internet theory is becoming more and more true everyday. Just look at the state of twitter right now that shit is filled to the brim with bots.
Sites feel like they're actively encouraging that now. Meta tried having a bunch of AI profiles on their sites for some reason and pulled them when people were complaining.AI has made the dead internet a reality aren't new.
Everyone "upset" over this should have the right to do it. I'm absolutely fucking having a wonderful series of weeks with these people getting worked up over nothing, you'll love to see it.People seething over how AI "steals" artstyles reminds me of this post:
View attachment 7158082
What counts as copyright-refreshing use, though? What if they kept random Shrek playsets in stores, or Monopoly: Shrek Edition, but no new movies? What if they rereleased one of the movies with an extra 5 minutes of footage so technically it's new? What if they just make a TV bumper where Shrek says "you're watching Cartoon Network," is that enough new content to retain the rights?I've said a few times elsewhere but I think copyright should be short but only apply once the IP stops being used. If a company can prove that they're actually using the IP then they should retain the copyright but if they're just sitting on it then it should be free. So Disney still keeps the steamboat willie copyright that they've fucked over the whole system to retain, but something like Shrek would already be free to use. I just think copyright should start to expire from when you last used it instead of when you first used it, just at a much faster rate.
That's why the old system – twenty-something years by default, and one time twenty-something more if you pay an extension fee –was superior.Just feels like it would become a mess where people might be under the impression they can use a property, but in fact the company maintained their rights in some minor way so you end up in trouble. Or they lost the film rights because too much time passed but they retained book rights and you made a comic which is technically a book so you infringed.
Ending IP laws will end any motivation to publish creative works to the world. Elon wants to end IP laws because the way AI collects data is 100% in violation, openAI fucking killed a guy who tried to whistleblow on it.
A vast majority of creative works in history does not register its copyright or execute its copyright at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite; creative work seems to pop up a lot more often in spaces where there are very loose enforcement of copyright.Ending IP laws will end any motivation to publish creative works to the world.
By european law i am the rightful IP holder by the fact that i am the creator. I do not need to register with any authority.A vast majority of creative works in history does not register its copyright or execute its copyright at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite; creative work seems to pop up a lot more often in spaces where there are very loose enforcement of copyright.
I cannot fathom how a law made to essentially legally enforce a monopoly is somehow going to prevent a monopoly.