• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The absolute right decision. Generative art is a fair use machine, not a plagiarism one. We need more fair use, not less.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      It’s not the right decision for the content creators. So it’s not “absolute right”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Expanding the terms of copyright to 70 years after the life of the author actually didn’t help artists make art. Expanding copyright to cover “training” will result in more costly litigation, make things harder for small artists and creators, and further centralize the corporate IP hoarders that can afford to shoulder the increased costs of doing business. There are inumerable content creators that could and will make use of generative art to make content and they should be allowed to prosper. We need more fair use, not less.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        You do realize individuals can train neural networks on their own hardware, right? Generative art and generative text is not something owned by corporations — and in fact what is optimistically becoming apparent is that it is specifically difficult to build moats around a generative model, meaning that it’s especially hard for for corporations to own this technology outright — but those corporations are the only ones that benefit from expanding copyright. Also, I disagree with you also. A trained model is a transformative work, as are the works you can generate with those models. Applying the four factor fair use test comes out heavily on the side of fair use.