I do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.
I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.
Other than patronage, what is there?
Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point
you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too*
I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money.
*(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allow you to just grab something you didn't pay for with your hand and run away with it.
If I fully believe in the concept of fair use and transformative content, then yes it absolutely is my right to take advantage of generative AI.
Fair use is a common concept used in all sorts of media.
You don't get to hand wave that away just because generative AI is getting good.
I don't think I need to "gaslight myself" into anything; as far as I can tell, making a copy has not ever felt morally wrong to me.
Creation should happen for whatever reason its creator becomes inspired with. The only absolute I can think of is no one should actually categorize worthy and unworthy motifs.
The only invalid reason is because you need to feed yourself, and the fact that we need to do that, we need to pay artists and everyone else just to survive, shows our failure as broader society.
I agree with your premise but the chess analogy falls flat.
We might, legitimately, see an enormous dropoff in people creating original works of literary, musical, and visual art (without AI).
If those motivated purely by money stop creating little of value will be lost
Somehow Finland can manage, but US can't? Please.
The roofless exist to send a message, "stay in your lane, be a cog in the machine, don't disrupt the system and you won't end up like THEM".
Great art - especially in modern times when that art involves expensive education (which if you're American must be paid for with interest) and the incorporation of technology and equipment - takes time and effort. If that time and effort cannot be paid for, then no matter how passionate an artist may be, unless they have sufficient personal wealth, that art must suffer.
Even the great artists of old needed patrons, because they needed to eat like anyone else. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for the love of the game, nor would he have.
I guarantee you that the working artists who have already lost commissions and work due to AI care about their craft.
I’m not pretending anything. I’m just making a statement about what might happen. I don’t personally care much one way or the other.
I care little about paying „rightsholders“ and their ilk - so I have zero empathy if they complain about imagined losses.
Don’t jump to conclusions about people who have never even talked to
Maybe you believe no artist who works for a corporation has any motivation but money, as opposed to purely "indie" artists, I don't know where the line in your head is drawn, but you do seem willing to throw most artists under the bus for some arbitrary standard of purity.
AI is harming working artists right now, and will likely never harm corporate rightsholders. They'll simply run their own AIs and fire as many people as they can get away with. The end result will not be that only the "true" artists survive but simply less art of any kind, everywhere. So I stand by my comment.
I for example have never benefited from copyright, neither from GEMA (the German artist association for musicians) - 99% of payouts go to the rich and successful mainstream artists and „indie“ artists get nothing but are forced by law to pay in if they want to perform in public.
So yea I have little sympathy for artists who only work for corporations or are rich enough to afford lawyers to enforce their copyright.
The way I see it there exist 3 ways to make a living as an artist now: - be rich trustfundkid and don’t care about money - be „purist“ and just live from selling your art and be on the brink of starvation constantly - get a „money“job and produce art in your spare time
Apparently there exists a huge population of artists who can make a living from working for corporations - but I have yet to meet one in real life. They are always brought up in these HN discussions but in my experience they don’t exist.
People didn't stop painting because photography exists, they created new forms of photography. People didn't stop writing music or using new / unique instruments when synths and programs came along.
I genuinely believe that people will keep creating, it's in our nature, and we also like things made by other humans, because we can relate to them.
It has nothing to do with whatever "value" the capitalist system assigns to the act as a side-effect.