Difference is for me, if I feed a LLM your work and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement, especially if you monetise that output. Its devaluing your ability to make new and unique content if your work isn’t protected if I can copy your style with a simple prompt for say a recruitment ad for ICE and there is fuck all you can do about it.
Which is more capitalistic, giant corporations like Facebook stealing others work and devaluing labour and talnet further or self created content that could be quite easily self published? Its classic big guy verses little guy.
Who’s more likely to have the legal fees to pursue copyright infringement cases, the big corporations who do it all the time stringing people along until they go broke trying to fight them and than go and lobby for another 10 years copyright extension or the poor artist?
Copyright and IP exist for their benefit, not ours.
Yeah, we’re like the peasants who were robbed of all the wheat they worked so hard to grow and left to starve. Hell, what if executions for thoughtcrimes became the norm?
and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
Seems like the opposite.
Keeping the same legal considerations, but replacing LLM with a person
if I feed an imitator your work and now they can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement
producing a derivative work with substantial changes (like a new idea) is a classic, time-tested way to produce similar work while upholding copyright.
If that’s not infringement when ordinary people do it, then how is that infringement for LLMs?
Fifty shades of grey had to change its entire setting and characters to get published. I can’t just produce princess monoke two and not get sued.
I can’t even sell t shirts with either on via etsy or similar without risk. Yet I could steal studio ghibilis art style with zero talent involved using a llm to advertise my business, seemingly perfectly legal right now.
You never hear music in a show or movie that sounds like a shitty knock-off of popular music to comply with copyrights?
It happens a lot.
“Princess Mononoke 2” would copy a bit more than merely style: characters, setting, theme, story, expression.
Imitating mere style (like Ghibli) for something substantially different was legal before just as it is now for human or LLM.
I think people like you are throwing fits because they never realized it (or cared) until LLMs started doing what skilled people were already doing long before.
Even killing children may be legal if it is profitable, they will even be used to cook food, well, that’s just for comparison, one thing is cannibalism of the flesh, another is cannibalism of the soul in the case of art.
Difference is for me, if I feed a LLM your work and now it can produce books, music, or art in your style, then yeah its infringement, especially if you monetise that output. Its devaluing your ability to make new and unique content if your work isn’t protected if I can copy your style with a simple prompt for say a recruitment ad for ICE and there is fuck all you can do about it.
Why fight to prop up capitalism?
Which is more capitalistic, giant corporations like Facebook stealing others work and devaluing labour and talnet further or self created content that could be quite easily self published? Its classic big guy verses little guy.
Who’s more likely to have the legal fees to pursue copyright infringement cases, the big corporations who do it all the time stringing people along until they go broke trying to fight them and than go and lobby for another 10 years copyright extension or the poor artist?
Copyright and IP exist for their benefit, not ours.
Yeah, we’re like the peasants who were robbed of all the wheat they worked so hard to grow and left to starve. Hell, what if executions for thoughtcrimes became the norm?
“Style” is not a trademarkeable asset, you buffon.
Seems like the opposite. Keeping the same legal considerations, but replacing LLM with a person
producing a derivative work with substantial changes (like a new idea) is a classic, time-tested way to produce similar work while upholding copyright. If that’s not infringement when ordinary people do it, then how is that infringement for LLMs?
Not really at all.
Fifty shades of grey had to change its entire setting and characters to get published. I can’t just produce princess monoke two and not get sued.
I can’t even sell t shirts with either on via etsy or similar without risk. Yet I could steal studio ghibilis art style with zero talent involved using a llm to advertise my business, seemingly perfectly legal right now.
You never hear music in a show or movie that sounds like a shitty knock-off of popular music to comply with copyrights? It happens a lot.
“Princess Mononoke 2” would copy a bit more than merely style: characters, setting, theme, story, expression.
Imitating mere style (like Ghibli) for something substantially different was legal before just as it is now for human or LLM. I think people like you are throwing fits because they never realized it (or cared) until LLMs started doing what skilled people were already doing long before.
Even killing children may be legal if it is profitable, they will even be used to cook food, well, that’s just for comparison, one thing is cannibalism of the flesh, another is cannibalism of the soul in the case of art.