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

[Justice and Rule]

Curious what you found interesting about it.

I thought it was notable that she mentions in footnote 4 that "there does not appear to be evidence of actual protection of literary property" but then she proceeds to build a substantial argument on contractual inference. This concession, buried in the footnote, should have been front and center.

Ha! I lied. That was part of Claude's analysis. He (she? it? they? Cthuhlu?) had a bunch of other interesting things to say, but I'll bet you aren't interested because it's just "AI slop".

I mean, if you read the footnote, she points out that the concept of "literary property" and "copyright" are different, but also often used interchangeably?

There does not appear to be evidence of actual protection of literary property, but the term has often been used interchangeably with copyright to signify some proprietary or ownership right to the work. Mark Rose, for example, refers to the early copyright struggle between booksellers in England as “the question of literary property.” See ROSE, supra note 1, at 4. Lyman Ray Patterson and Stanley Lindberg, on the other hand, suggest that literary property and copyright are essentially different things. See L. RAY PATTERSON &STANLEY W. LINDBERG, THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT: A LAW OF USERS’ RIGHTS 122 (1991). To them, the rights of authors should not be treated as copyright but as a “companion body of law.” See id.

I mean, the section itself does a good job of making the distinction if you actually read it yourself and didn't just try to get it summarized by an AI.

The full extent to which literary property can be said to safeguard an author’s natural right over his own work may be a matter of pure academic speculation.4 What appears certain, however, is that literary property predates statutory copyright and protects an author’s personal interest and individuality to a greater extent than an industry-based entitlement intended to control the mass production and publication of the work. Authors produced literature before the invention of the printing press made copying cheap and easy, and, while plagiarists were often severely admonished for representing someone else’s work as their own,5pirates, who reproduced works in their totality, were often praised for preserving the integrity of the original work.6 Thus, even before copyright existed to protect commercial rights to print, publish, and distribute, noneconomic incentives motivated authors to express themselves through poetry, songs, and literature, expecting the community to respect the personal integrity of authors.

Perhaps if you read it yourself, you could actually make that distinction that Claude failed to do. I suppose this is why people shouldn't use it for reading legal texts and such. But I personally enjoyed reading the take of an expert in its completion, given the background and depth they gave to things.

 

[FrogReaver]

Curious what you found interesting about it.

I thought it was notable that she mentions in footnote 4 that "there does not appear to be evidence of actual protection of literary property" but then she proceeds to build a substantial argument on contractual inference. This concession, buried in the footnote, should have been front and center.

Ha! I lied. That was part of Claude's analysis. He (she? it? they? Cthuhlu?) had a bunch of other interesting things to say, but I'll bet you aren't interested because it's just "AI slop".

I didn't ask the AI on this one, but i'm in agreement, footnote 4 seems fairly damning to the articles basic premise.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I didn't ask the AI on this one, but i'm in agreement, footnote 4 seems fairly damning to the articles basic premise.

Once again, someone who did not actually read the article.

 

[FrogReaver]

Once again, someone who did not actually read the article.

I have serious doubts you read the whole article.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I have serious doubts you read the whole article.

You can think that, but I've definitely read more than either of you did, given that I actually read a decent portion of it and didn't resort to having it filtered and removed from context via an AI.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, if you read the footnote, she points out that the concept of "literary property" and "copyright" are different, but also often used interchangeably?



I mean, the section itself does a good job of making the distinction if you actually read it yourself and didn't just try to get it summarized by an AI.



Perhaps if you read it yourself, you could actually make that distinction that Claude failed to do. I suppose this is why people shouldn't use it for reading legal texts and such. But I personally enjoyed reading the take of an expert in its completion, given the background and depth they gave to things.

This is the quote in question

"The full extent to which literary property can be said to safeguard an author’s natural right over his own work may be a matter of pure academic speculation.4 What appears certain, however, is that literary property predates statutory copyright and protects an author’s personal interest and individuality to a greater extent than an industry-based entitlement intended to control the mass production and publication of the work. Authors produced literature before the invention of the printing press made copying cheap and easy, and, while plagiarists were often severely admonished for representing someone else’s work as their own,5pirates, who reproduced works in their totality, were often praised for preserving the integrity of the original work.6 Thus, even before copyright existed to protect commercial rights to print, publish, and distribute, noneconomic incentives motivated authors to express themselves through poetry, songs, and literature, expecting the community to respect the personal integrity of authors."

The fact this particular quote even talks about plagiarists (those taking credit for another's work) being condemned and pirates that reproduced the work in full being praised enshrines the point that whatever evidence of literary property is being referenced, isn't what you want it to mean.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can think that, but I've definitely read more than either of you did, given that I actually read a decent portion of it and didn't resort to having it filtered and removed from context via an AI.

Thanks for the tacit admission that you didn't read the article either. I read a decent portion as well and I didn't consult AI on it's meaning.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, if you read the footnote, she points out that the concept of "literary property" and "copyright" are different, but also often used interchangeably?

I don't think that's the get of jail free card you think it is. "The thing I'm talking about doesn't actually exist, but in recent years some writers have used the term to mean this other thing that does exist. So I'm going to run with it."

 

[Justice and Rule]

This is the quote in question

"The full extent to which literary property can be said to safeguard an author’s natural right over his own work may be a matter of pure academic speculation.4 What appears certain, however, is that literary property predates statutory copyright and protects an author’s personal interest and individuality to a greater extent than an industry-based entitlement intended to control the mass production and publication of the work. Authors produced literature before the invention of the printing press made copying cheap and easy, and, while plagiarists were often severely admonished for representing someone else’s work as their own,5pirates, who reproduced works in their totality, were often praised for preserving the integrity of the original work.6 Thus, even before copyright existed to protect commercial rights to print, publish, and distribute, noneconomic incentives motivated authors to express themselves through poetry, songs, and literature, expecting the community to respect the personal integrity of authors."

The fact this particular quote even talks about plagiarists (those taking credit for another's work) being condemned and pirates that reproduced the work in full being praised enshrines the point that whatever evidence of literary property is being referenced, isn't what you want it to mean.

I don't understand what you are even trying to say here. It's basically brought into the open very clearly, and is so at multiple other junctures in the piece. Acting like it's somehow hidden in a footnote misses that it's brought up and a focus in other places where the problems in trying to implement it into modern law. Like, this is not a hidden thing, but something fully discussed... if you, y'know, read a little bit longer.

Thanks for the tacit admission that you didn't read the article either. I read a decent portion as well and I didn't consult AI on it's meaning.

Oh sure. Absolutely. Of course.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't think that's the get of jail free card you think it is. "The thing I'm talking about doesn't actually exist, but in recent years some writers have used the term to mean this other thing that does exist. So I'm going to run with it."

It's not a get-out-of-jail free card, it's her discussing a concept. You're so focused on trying to find something rather than engaging with the piece, you are missing what the piece is actually talking about. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to try and ask Claude what it meant, you would actually read the introduction.