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

[FrogReaver]

Just because a right hasn’t always been recognised doesn’t make it artificial.

Would you say the same things about say, a woman’s right to vote, which is an even more recent development than copyright law?

IMO. Democracy isn’t a natural right. Thus no voting is either. But I think this will quickly stray a bit too far into politics so I’m goina leave this tangent there.

 

[SableWyvern]

Just because a right hasn’t always been recognised doesn’t make it artificial.

Would you say the same things about say, a woman’s right to vote, which is an even more recent development than copyright law?

At the time I made that post, I wasn't aware that I was many pages behind the discussion. Others have covered this topic in more detail since the post I was replying to, so I don't see any value in rehashing it. I certainly don't believe this thread is the place to get into an argument over the details of women's rights through the ages and how those rights differ from copyright and patents.

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. .

I am frustrated enough as it is by AI summaries being shoved in my face by automated systems and at the top of search results. The last thing I need is for other people to be using them as responses in lieu of actually engaging in conversation or providing their own opinion. If, for some reason, I want an AI summary, it's easy to go get one; I don't need someone else providing them unsolicited.

The thing is, every single AI summary needs to be fact-checked if I actually care about the answer -- either by my existing knowledge, in which case the summary didn't help me since I already knew the information; or by research, in which case the summary didn't help me because I had to go find the information elsewhere.

So, in summary, while it appears I disagree with you strongly on the moral underpinnings of copyright, I'm fully on your side when it comes to random AI summaries, especially as a replacement for actual conversation or real research..

 

[Older Beholder]

I brought up Women’s right to vote as an example to pushback on the notion that somehow a law is less valuable based on its recency. I guess I wasn’t really prepared that people might have had an issue with that too.

 

[Older Beholder]

Gatekeeping is the go-to lazy criticism these days...

The funny thing about that quote is nobody was saying, let alone crying that AI makes good art. If anything the thread was started by someone crying that they aren’t entitled to steal other people’s work.
And when folks offered multiple alternatives, it was met with more crying.

It doesn’t even feel like people are that into AI, so much, but rather it’s just resentment of artists and creative people in general.

 

[dbolack]

The Do YoUrr oWn reeSeerCHe thing is tiring.

Eliza provided better arguments.

 

[gban007]

Then why weren't protections (originally) granted in perpetuity?

Morrus has been making comparisons to stealing cars. You don't lose your right to your car after 14 or 28 or "lifetime plus 90". years. It's forever.

When I went down rabbit hole looking into copyright laws, and some tangent about a battle potentially fought over who owned a document as such, there was suggestion that prior to Statute of Anne there was a common law copyright that was perpetual, but the Statute and other similar copyright law was implemented to open up the benefit to wider society, and so wasnt granting a new right, but limiting an existing right as well as providing clarity post invention of printing press.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

Eliza provided better arguments.

Alas. You’ve mistaken a criticism and expression of annoyance for an argument.

“There’s a hole in your bucket,
Dear ‘Liza, dear Liza…”

Edit: clarified context.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Eliza provided better arguments.

Why do you think Eliza provided better arguments?

 

[Bill Zebub]

When I went down rabbit hole looking into copyright laws, and some tangent about a battle potentially fought over who owned a document as such, there was suggestion that prior to Statute of Anne there was a common law copyright that was perpetual, but the Statute and other similar copyright law was implemented to open up the benefit to wider society, and so wasnt granting a new right, but limiting an existing right as well as providing clarity post invention of printing press.

That's pretty much the opposite of what I've been able to find. Prior to modern copyright law there was zero protection.

 

[dbolack]

In order to get to it's current state....I think it's life of author plus 90 (?)...Disney lawyers had to propagate this idea that it's not about economic incentive but natural right.

As much as this gets dumped on Disney, they aren't the sole blame here. Copyright in the US was extended multiple times - the largest, IIRC, was to comply with the Berne convention.