Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Swanosaurus" data-source="post: 9372994" data-attributes="member: 7044220">I don't quit get who the "original artist" would be in this context. If I'm plagiarising someones work using a brush and then make money of it, that might very well be a copyright violation. If I'm using a typwriter to reproduce The Lord of the Rings and then sell copies, that's certainly a copyright violation. If I'm creating an original work myself, however, I'm the original artist.But anyway, I don't feed other people's creative work into my brush or paint so that they will create something from it automatically. If I get inspired by other people's art, it means that I process other works - to put it a little pompously - as ressource to develop my personality as an artist. I use their work for personal edification. To me, that seems very different from using other people's creative works as a ressource for machine-processing. If I use a machine to print reproductions of paintings someone holds the copyright of for commercial use, I should pay them. The reproduction may not be exactly the painting, but I make use of their creative work to make money. If I feed someone's painting into an AI to enable it to create new paintings, I'm basically doing the same thing - using the creative work of another person to enable a machine to create something that I can sell (or to enable it, more generally, so that I can sell the machine's services). I'm using the specifically creative content of other peoples art as a ressource to make money, and that warrants recompensation.Basically, to me it's more about exploitation of other people's work than it is about plagiarism.</blockquote>

Verification