AI art and creative content creation

Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest4 said:

The original sources own the copyright.
Click to expand...
And who are the original sources?

And how much do you need to modify some existing bit of art before it's no longer the property of the original creator? And as before, why should the copyright last longer than the 17 years of a patent?
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:

The original sources own the copyright.
Click to expand...
And who are the original sources?

And how much do you need to modify some existing bit of art before it's no longer the property of the original creator? And as before, why should the copyright last longer than the 17 years of a patent?
Click to expand...

Or... just gimme. Gimme, so I can play with it. Permission - you may have heard of it.
 
edwest4 said:
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:

The original sources own the copyright.
Click to expand...
And who are the original sources?

And how much do you need to modify some existing bit of art before it's no longer the property of the original creator? And as before, why should the copyright last longer than the 17 years of a patent?
Click to expand...

Or... just gimme. Gimme, so I can play with it. Permission - you may have heard of it.
Click to expand...
Non-responsive.

Also, not useful. How would I go about getting permission from Da Vinci or Robert Goddard to use and modify their art & patented inventions? By the argument of "death of the author + 100 years," we're still some time away from being able to build airplanes (Orville died in '48).
 

Attachments

  • 1460120344.jpg
    1460120344.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 7
  • 1608719828_729632_1608722567_noticia_normal.jpg
    1608719828_729632_1608722567_noticia_normal.jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 7
  • 1640949248_722110_1640951896_noticia_normal_recorte1.jpg
    1640949248_722110_1640951896_noticia_normal_recorte1.jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 7
They've made their decision, now let's see them enforce it.

There are far too many of these AI systems being developed to be stifled by copyright law. This will be as successful as banning people from tape-recording songs off the radio, or VHS-taping movies on HBO.
 
Orionblamblam said:
They've made their decision, now let's see them enforce it.

There are far too many of these AI systems being developed to be stifled by copyright law. This will be as successful as banning people from tape-recording songs off the radio, or VHS-taping movies on HBO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah. Da internet's too big, you can't stop it. They will certainly try. Contact the U.S. Patent Office for your other question. I'm not a patent attorney.

I don't know anyone with a VHS tape player. They went out in the trash years ago.
 
Not seen on Monty Python.

The Ministry of Anarchy (with the word People's scrawled in with some red liquid)

Man at door: I'm here to join the revolution!

Voice from speaker: Are you carrying any firearms or marijuana?

Mad: Uh, no.

Vfs: Alright. Come in. (buzzer sounds)

The man walks into an empty room. Where is everybody?

I'm here behind the curtain.

Can you come out so we can talk?

No, I'd rather stay right here. So what kind of anarchy do you want?

I want an end to all copyright law! It's out of control! You hear me!? OUT. OF. CONTROL. I want to copy anything anywhere at any time. NOW !!!

I see. And what about the copyright owner? Doesn't he get to make a little money off his work?

Sure. But the moment he dies and the body's cold, I GET EVVVVERYTHINGGG !!!
 
People seem to be missing the point here.

If I study art, and learn to use creative tools (oil paint, blender, what have you) and create an original piece in the style of Dali or Duchamps, or maybe a combination of both, this is my work and no-one elses. I am not making an unauthorized copy of anything, neither at the time of study nor at the time of production.

AI simply automates this. It does not retain a copy of what it is trained on, any more than I do. What it generates it does based on a prompt, which constitutes an original idea, just as my own work would.

If your notion of art demands skill and effort I refer you to the modernists.

The idea that this kind of production should somehow be exempt from progress, automation and innovation, and hogtied by a luddite attitude that machines studying art is somehow tantamount to theft is simply preposterous.
 
hagaricus said:
People seem to be missing the point here.

If I study art, and learn to use creative tools (oil paint, blender, what have you) and create an original piece in the style of Dali or Duchamps, or maybe a combination of both, this is my work and no-one elses. I am not making an unauthorized copy of anything, neither at the time of study nor at the time of production.

AI simply automates this. It does not retain a copy of what it is trained on, any more than I do. What it generates it does based on a prompt, which constitutes an original idea, just as my own work would.

If your notion of art demands skill and effort I refer you to the modernists.

The idea that this kind of production should somehow be exempt from progress, automation and innovation, and hogtied by a luddite attitude that machines studying art is somehow tantamount to theft is simply preposterous.
Click to expand...

Had the machines been trained in some other way, I'd have no complaint. As it is, OpernAI, among others, admits the machines were trained on work scraped off the internet without permission. That's the key word. Open a good history book and you will see: "Reprinted with permission or reprinted with permission of [private owner]." Hollywood does this all the time, meaning gets permission. They use the word "clearance." A few years back, a Hollywood production company contacted my company to get permission to include a few copies of our books in a scene for a well-known TV show. The owner signed the document and returned it.

A real human being and a so-called AI are worlds apart. They don't have ideas. They are completely limited by the instructions programmed in. There is no comparison. Machines can't study anything. The program characterizes elements and reassembles and combines them. It cannot do otherwise.
 
You miss the point again. the training of the AI is equivalent to a human looking at the artwork.

not copying it

not redistributing it

looking at it
 
edwest4 said:
Sure. But the moment he dies and the body's cold, I GET EVVVVERYTHINGGG !!!
Click to expand...
This sort of thing is why it's difficult to take you seriously: you seem incapable of understanding that "I don't want copyright to last for more than a century" is not the same as "I don't want copyright to exist."

Once again: tell me why *you* think copyright should last longer than a patent.
 
hagaricus said:
You miss the point again. the training of the AI is equivalent to a human looking at the artwork.

not copying it

not redistributing it

looking at it
Click to expand...

You miss the point again. Please do not give so-called AI human intelligence. It doesn't have it.
 
It's all a simple question of money and the moral legitimacy of the concept of inheritance. On the one hand many people do not think it is fair that the son of a millionaire is born rich without deserving it, on the contrary it also seems fair that the son benefits from the effort of the father, if a radical government prohibited the right of inheritance everyone would spend the pension without leaving anything for the tax collector. Also, at a low income level, the right to benefit from the product of a deceased artist must be recognized by relatives who have had to endure the character and eccentricities of a creative genius.
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:
Sure. But the moment he dies and the body's cold, I GET EVVVVERYTHINGGG !!!
Click to expand...
This sort of thing is why it's difficult to take you seriously: you seem incapable of understanding that "I don't want copyright to last for more than a century" is not the same as "I don't want copyright to exist."

Once again: tell me why *you* think copyright should last longer than a patent.
Click to expand...

Copyright applies to cultural artifacts. Patents can apply to a number of different categories, from designs to drugs. The copyright situation was lobbied for and the copyright holders won. I am against Public Domain without attribution. A woodcut from the 1800s should get attribution, not just appear out of nowhere to be sold to the general public who doesn't know any better.

I suspect patents are shorter since the state of the art - in whatever category - is shorter due to the actual real-life urgency involved.
 
While I'm not participating in the debate I did get curious about the history of copyright law in the 1 language I can read.
So, went and played a few minutes in Google.

Looks like the initial time limit was 14 years in both UK and the USA.

Australia Libraries source:

The history of copyright | Australian Libraries and Archives Copyright Coalition

alacc.org.au alacc.org.au

To answer the question ‘What is the point of copyright?’ it pays to take a look at it’s history. Copyright is about controlling the unauthorised reproduction of your creative works. But how and why did this idea come about? While digital technologies these days make copying as simple as ‘Ctrl C, Ctrl V’, for much of history it was not that easy.

For most of the Middle Ages copying content was much more difficult. If you wanted a copy of a book, for example, someone would have to copy it by hand – a tedious and time-consuming task. New technologies emerged to increase the ease, efficiency and time at which content could be copied, and copyright has been trying to keep up ever since.
Click to expand...

and,

US government source:

Timeline | U.S. Copyright Office

A Brief History of Copyright in the United States
www.copyright.gov www.copyright.gov

A Brief History of Copyright in the United States​



“Congress shall have the Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

– United States Constitution, Art. I, Section 8

In 1790, the Constitution enshrined in American law the principle that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited amount of time. Copyright protects through law original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. Today, copyright provides to an author the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute his or her work. The also provides, in the case of certain works, a right to publicly perform or display the work; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. The author may also grant to others a license to engage in these activities. The author, however, may not bar anyone from using an idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery.

Copyright law in the United States has changed often since the Constitution granted Congress the power to provide protection to authors’ creative works. Click on the dates below to learn more about major moments in copyright.
Click to expand...

and

UK government source,

How copyright protects your work

Who gets copyright, types of work it covers, permitted use of copyright material, how to license and sell copyright and help resolving disputes
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

Also see relevant subsection,

How copyright protects your work

Who gets copyright, types of work it covers, permitted use of copyright material, how to license and sell copyright and help resolving disputes
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

Overview​


Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission.
You get copyright protection automatically - you don’t have to apply or pay a fee. There isn’t a register of copyright works in the UK.
You automatically get copyright protection when you create:
  • original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, including illustration and photography
  • original non-literary written work, such as software, web content and databases
  • sound and music recordings
  • film and television recordings
  • broadcasts
  • the layout of published editions of written, dramatic and musical works
You can mark your work with the copyright symbol (©), your name and the year of creation. Whether you mark the work or not doesn’t affect the level of protection you have.

How copyright protects your work​

Copyright prevents people from:
  • copying your work
  • distributing copies of it, whether free of charge or for sale
  • renting or lending copies of your work
  • performing, showing or playing your work in public
  • making an adaptation of your work
  • putting it on the internet
Click to expand...
 
Also relevant for understanding, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright

Trademark, patent, or copyright​




Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are different types of intellectual property. The USPTO grants patents and registers trademarks. The U.S. Copyright Office at the Library of Congress registers copyrights. Use the IP Identifier to learn what kind of intellectual property you have.

TrademarkPatentCopyright
What's legally protected?A word, phrase, design, or a combination that identifies your goods or services, distinguishes them from the goods or services of others, and indicates the source of your goods or services.Technical inventions, such as chemical compositions like pharmaceutical drugs, mechanical processes like complex machinery, or machine designs that are new, unique, and usable in some type of industry.Artistic, literary, or intellectually created works, such as novels, music, movies, software code, photographs, and paintings that are original and exist in a tangible medium, such as paper, canvas, film, or digital format.
What's an example?Coca-Cola® for soft drinksA new type of hybrid engineSong lyrics to “Let It Go”
from "Frozen"
What are the benefits
of federal protection?		Protects the trademark from being registered by others without permission and helps you prevent others from using a trademark that is similar to yours with related goods or services. Safeguards inventions and processes from other parties copying, making, using, or selling the invention without the inventor’s consent.Protects your exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and perform or display the created work, and prevents other people from copying or exploiting the creation without the copyright holder’s permission.
Click to expand...
 
edwest4 said:
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:
Sure. But the moment he dies and the body's cold, I GET EVVVVERYTHINGGG !!!
Click to expand...
This sort of thing is why it's difficult to take you seriously: you seem incapable of understanding that "I don't want copyright to last for more than a century" is not the same as "I don't want copyright to exist."

Once again: tell me why *you* think copyright should last longer than a patent.
Click to expand...

Copyright applies to cultural artifacts. ...

I suspect patents are shorter since the state of the art - in whatever category - is shorter due to the actual real-life urgency involved.
Click to expand...
This didn't explain why *you* think patents are peanuts compared to copyright. But the explanation you give argues for copyright having no greater import than patents. You *want* patent protection because that inspires innovation, because innovators know they'll be able to not just recover their costs but profit from their work. And it's much more important to produce new antibiotics or better batteries than the next Lizzo song.

Is it "real life urgency" that makes *you* want to get your greedy mitts on, say, the latest diabetes medicine?

Makign copyright vastly longer than patents implies that artists are vastly more important than scientists... and they are simply not.
 
edwest4 said:
hagaricus said:
You miss the point again. the training of the AI is equivalent to a human looking at the artwork.

not copying it

not redistributing it

looking at it
Click to expand...

You miss the point again. Please do not give so-called AI human intelligence. It doesn't have it.
Click to expand...

I'm doing nothing of the sort, just pointing out that our technology has now reached the point that learning can be automated, and what an automated system has "absorbed, evaluated, and inwardly digested" can be used as a creative tool of vast potential. All attempts to decry this are just the laments of the buggy-whip maker at the advent of the horseless carriage.
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:
Orionblamblam said:
edwest4 said:
Sure. But the moment he dies and the body's cold, I GET EVVVVERYTHINGGG !!!
Click to expand...
This sort of thing is why it's difficult to take you seriously: you seem incapable of understanding that "I don't want copyright to last for more than a century" is not the same as "I don't want copyright to exist."

Once again: tell me why *you* think copyright should last longer than a patent.
Click to expand...

Copyright applies to cultural artifacts. ...

I suspect patents are shorter since the state of the art - in whatever category - is shorter due to the actual real-life urgency involved.
Click to expand...
This didn't explain why *you* think patents are peanuts compared to copyright. But the explanation you give argues for copyright having no greater import than patents. You *want* patent protection because that inspires innovation, because innovators know they'll be able to not just recover their costs but profit from their work. And it's much more important to produce new antibiotics or better batteries than the next Lizzo song.

Is it "real life urgency" that makes *you* want to get your greedy mitts on, say, the latest diabetes medicine?

Makign copyright vastly longer than patents implies that artists are vastly more important than scientists... and they are simply not.
Click to expand...

Imply all you like. I am not responsible for the length of copyright. And don't project on me. I don't belong to any lobbying groups who are trying to convince people in power that they need all the time they can get.
 
Hell, look what this can do and it doesn't even require AI. As someone who spent thousands of hours manually modelling and placing trees, bushes, etc. in computer games back in the late 90s/00s I would have killed for something like this.

 
Today on ABC News, a fake image of an "explosion" at the Pentagon was posted. In the interest of promoting "actual" journalism, I would like to point out the following sentence in the article: "The tweet's caption also misrepresented the Pentagon's located."

Now either the writer was not a native English speaker or was a chimp. I'm guessing the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom