the copyright objection to AI image generation is bad for a lot of reasons including ideological ones and "how would you litigate this without disastrous implications" ones but also because none of the problems with like, actual material consequences are in any way addressed by it. a one-time payout to some # of artists does not make a market saturated with slop any more functional
- they/them
I'm a writer, artist, and game developer. Currently working on Unknown Station Echo, a translation-based mystery.
Itch page 🎮
aliengeometries.itch.io/Discord
Send me an ask (prev interactions only, please be over 18)
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @KaterinaBucket's post:
you're right and you should say it. on one hand i think this could help topple these fuckin' AI parasites, but on the other hand: they were already toppling because they aren't financially viable, and copyright as it is is fucked. i want real labor protections for artists that actually work instead of IP law that mostly just exists so bazillion-dollar companies can nuke artists making a few piddly dollars off fan merch. or people making free fangames. 🫠 and like i dunno, i want to live in a society where i can be secure and housed and fed without having to always be ready to protect my income with a Redbubble DMCA or something. i am likely preaching to the choir here lmfao sorry
Concerningly, some of the people I've seen floating "copyright violation" talk around AI are implying or outright stating that the copyrighted element being reproduced is their style. That is not remotely how copyright works and we should all be glad of it.
If I studied a working artist and copied everything they're doing stylistically, but in a new piece that doesn't reference their work, it would be aesthetically derivative, sure. But general vibes are not copyrightable.