AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Umbran]

Was surprised because it sounded like it was but from knowing you it would have been something I had thought you'd have disagreed with.

I am not ignoring context. I am adding context that I feel is both relevant, and not cleanly dismissible, and have given some reasons why I feel that's the case on this particular topic. I don't see that reading it as a general argument is supported by my text.

If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it, as always.

 

[Justice and Rule]

"Has problems". No not really. I already take everything on the internet with a grain of salt including AI and google search results. I've found not much has really changed in terms of needed carefulness for correct/incorrect information. That said, I'm not writing an academic or legal paper. The need for accuracy above all else in this context is far less crucial. If something is major wrong, it will be challenged quickly and I'll dig into the veracity of those challenges.

You don't need to be writing an academic paper or legal brief to understand that AI summaries aren't great. I mean, unless you like glue on your pizza, but to each their own.

That's an understandable fiction, but isn't how things historically went down. We can probably at least agree on a basic timeline.

Once again, saying things without backing them up. You have no evidence to your claim, so you attempt to demean mine.

Howso?

The idea that because it did not exist at the time, it's existence is somehow "new" and unique, unrelated to what came before. Again, like the internet and free speech: the internet wasn't when the Founders were, so can the Constitution cover it? If we are taking a very limited take on what we use to connect such things, then no. And I find y'all are taking that limited take: copyright only existed for so long, thus it can't have existed before then or had any relation to something else before then. And that's... just not true.

I'll tell you what, I'll find you a source. In the meantime, why don't you quote my your source?

Sure! Was not hard to find: just a quick search.

Link

That pretty clearly establishes how theft is an intrinsic part of the beginning of copyright law, and informs how we should look at our own, given this would have been what informed our own Founders ideas of what copyright was meant for.

 

[FrogReaver]

Eh, U.S. law comes from English law, and the Statute of Anne from 1710 disagrees. In particular:



That would rather directly talk about the impact on people and how this is theft.

Federalist Paper no 43

"To the People of the State of New York:

THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:

1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ''The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress."

Do you know why he references right of common law instead of natural right? Those are different things. A common law right, is a legal right, not a moral right. As such Madison makes clear his case for copyright protection is utilitarian - 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts'.

Likewise the Statute of Anne makes clear it's intentino as utilitarion in it's very first line. "An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.

Like I said, your understanding of history, moral rights, natural rights and common-law rights is seriously lacking.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Eh, U.S. law comes from English law, and the Statute of Anne from 1710 disagrees. In particular:



That would rather directly talk about the impact on people and how this is theft.

Jefferson, etc. debated the reasons for copyright and patent and in their writings they are quite explicit that it was to incentivize innovation, not because of natural rights.

 

[Maxperson]

Previously, I noted that I am not really interested in the question, 'Is it art?" I am still uninterested in that question. However, there is a slightly different element that brings up.

There are historically two major positions on how to consider the moral aspects of art - one is "Moralism" in which art criticism includes, or is even reduced to, moral aspects, and a moral defect in a work should be considered an aesthetic defect. The other "Autonomism", in which only the aesthetic value is included. There are of course, various middling positions.

However, there is another position that is coming to light in current art criticism, called "ethicism", which holds that: “the ethical assessment of attitudes manifested by works of art is a legitimate aspect of the aesthetic evaluation of those works, such that, if a work manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective, and if a work manifest ethically commendable attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically meritorious.”

Needless to say, a work can be considered to "manifest" ethical attitudes not merely by its content, but also through the means of its creation.

Now, your position seems to be implicitly autonomistic - the morals and ethics of creation do not devolve upon the view of the work. However, it seems to me that an ethicist approach is also a valid one. And that position holds that, due to ethical flaws, a work can end up with no, or negative, aesthetic value.

Arguments over whether a thing is art seem a moot if the work is in significant danger of being art with no aesthetic value, due to its flaws.

My only argument here is about the one thing that you are not interested in. Is it art? I already agree with the majority regarding the ethics of AI training and the theft that was involved with it, so I'm not arguing that portion.

I agree with you that ethical concerns can reduce, invalidate or even result in negative aesthetics of art, but those concerns don't really render it "not art."

As I've noted a few times now, I will always prefer direct human created art to art created by humans through AI, even if we do eventually get an ethically sourced AI for the art creation. As things currently stand, I am on board with the majority in this thread that AI pictures not be used by RPG creators(or anywhere else, really), because of those ethical concerns and because I don't think we could even currently tell the difference between art created using ethical AI as a tool and prompt generated AI art.

 

[FrogReaver]

Jefferson, etc. debated the reasons for copyright and patent and in their writings they are quite explicit that it was to incentivize innovation, not because of natural rights.

It's also a bit ironic that the early history of copyright was to censor works, as established both via my AI search and @Justice and Rule referenced site. Nothing at all to do with moral or legal rights at that time.

 

[Maxperson]

In considering art, I don't think you get to unilaterally draw hard lines around context. That you gave an argument and assumed that it was only to be considered from certain angles is not binding upon me.

I wasn't. I was drawing hard lines around the context I am using for the argument, not the art itself. I know the context I have been using in my arguments, and that context doesn't change just because you want to consider other angles.

Those other angles can be added to the discussion and considered, but they don't apply to my original context. Other people can't dictate to me the context of my arguments.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Federalist Paper no 43

"To the People of the State of New York:

THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:

1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ''The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress."

Do you know why he references right of common law instead of natural right? Those are different things. A common law right, is a legal right, not a moral right. As such Madison makes clear his case for copyright protection is utilitarian - 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts'.

lmfao

And how does it promote such things? Why do we need to have such laws to promote such things if the prevention of theft wasn't needed for this?

Honestly, you're just proving my point to me.

Plus it's worth noting that there had been cases like Millar vs. Taylor in Britain using natural law underpinnings in such cases dating back to 1769:

The common law, now so called, is founded on the law of nature and reason. Its grounds, maxims, and principles are derived from many different fountains ... from natural and moral philosophy, from the civil and canon law, from logic, from the use, custom, and conversation among men, collected out of the general disposition of nature and condition of human kind."

But "natural law" isn't something static like you seem to think; it's something that has evolved over time as well, just like our rights. These things are dynamic, and we should look back at such things with the view from the present, not trying to endlessly assert some sort of originalist take that no longer fits our own time period.

Likewise the Statute of Anne makes clear it's intentino as utilitarion in it's very first line. "An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.

That's cool, but it doesn't negate the literal reasoning given at the end, which speaks to why it is needed to encourage learning and innovation: because if people feel like their inventions or works will simply be stolen, then they simply will not make things. You can't tout one while ignore the other, which is what you are trying to do. Meanwhile, I can take both because my argument doesn't hinge on not making it about innovation or learning: I recognize that absolutely to be a part of it, but the reason this measure is being taken is to prevent intellectual theft from discouraging such things.

Like I said, your understanding of history, moral rights, natural rights and common-law rights is seriously lacking.

I think they are actually pretty damn good, to be honest. Moreso than you, at least, given that you clearly are still using AI summaries.

But at the same time, natural law is an evolving concept, given that even the Founders were wrong on certain bits regarding certain classes or types of people. As we understand and develop more, we gain a clearer idea of the world than we once knew; what makes the Founders interesting and unique is that, despite their many flaws, they put down some rather radical ideas for that have stood the test of it.

Jefferson, etc. debated the reasons for copyright and patent and in their writings they are quite explicit that it was to incentivize innovation, not because of natural rights.

And how would they incentivize innovation? What's the incentive? Think about it: what problem are they trying to solve with it?

It's also a bit ironic that the early history of copyright was to censor works, as established both via my AI search and @Justice and Rule referenced site. Nothing at all to do with moral or legal rights at that time.

lmfao still trying to tout the AI search while I had to bring you to the Statute of Anne. And yeah, it did start as a censorship tool, but that clearly changes with the Statute of Anne reexamining and creating copyright law as we know it.

 

[FrogReaver]

lmfao still trying to tout the AI search while I had to bring you to the Statute of Anne. And yeah, it did start as a censorship tool, but that clearly changes with the Statute of Anne reexamining and creating copyright law as we know it.

No, it already did that long before you mentioned it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No, it already did that long before you mentioned it.

Did you then disregard it? Because it rather explicitly states what I'm talking about.

And before we get to the Americans touting "innovation", it's worth remembering they were lobbied during the Revolution by authors to create a similar act largely to protect the authors. Again, protecting innovation by protecting the authors from theft.

Every attempt of this nature undoubtedly merits the encouragement of the public; because it is by such attempts that systems of education are gradually perfected in every country, and the elements of knowledge rendered more easy to be acquired. Men of industry or of talents in any way, have a right to the property of their production; and it encourages invention and improvement to secure it to them by certain laws, as has been practiced in European countries with advantage and success. And it is my opinion tat it does no damage to the state, and may be of benefit to it, to vest, by a law, the sole right of publishing and vending such works in the authors of them.

That's from Samuel Smith, who was President of Princeton when he wrote that. And then in the Continental Congress:

"nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius, to promote useful discoveries and to the general extension of the arts and commerce"

Like, that's a pretty natural rights argument right there, if you are truly attached to it. But, clearly, it's not that innovation is the only factor here: they are thinking of the author's wellbeing how they can continue to be an author if they don't have some level of control when it comes to their own works. Other states get more blunt with it:

"Whereas the improvement of knowledge, the progress of civilization, the public weal of community, and the advancement of human happiness, greatly depend on the efforts of learned and ingenious persons in the various arts and sciences: as the principle encouragement such persons can have to make great and beneficial exertions of their nature must exist in the legal security of the fruits of their study and industry to themselves; and as such security is one of the natural rights of all men there being no property more peculiarly a man's own than that which is produced by the labor of his mind."

Now that's a state copyright law for Massachusetts, but clearly this idea of natural rights is very much within discussion of the idea of copyright, if you really want to try that argument.