They go over that, you should give them another read.
Comment on Not everything needs to be Art
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 week agoThese articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Could you please explain the point you’re making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?
I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don’t see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very “do your own research” doesn’t it?
However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)
The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn’t considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don’t protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.
I don’t think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
To quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I have known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.”
You should make an argument and then back it up with sources, not cite sources, and expect them to make your point for you. Not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you, nor will they understand your intent.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You haven’t made a single statement as to what meaning you’ve drawn from these articles, this is useless to the conversation. I am reading these articles and stating my conclusions, but you are simply telling me and others to read them again. You don’t seem to actually be interested in sharing what you think, yourself.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Copyright is being used more by companies to sue artists or even just individuals, than it is protecting your art.
It is an archaic grasp of control created by Disney to keep people from drawing a mouse with 2 round ears.
The help it supposedly provides you doesn’t come close to the amount of sacrifices you have to make to gain it.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I did say in the message that copyright is being used by companies more than artists. That’s why I wasn’t arguing about AI from a copyright angle because copyright doesn’t really help artists anyway.