If someone were on vacation and came home to learn that their neighbor had allowed some friends stay in the empty house, we would often expect some kind of outrage regardless of whether there had been specific damage or wear to the home.
Culturally, people have deeply set ideas about what's theirs, and feel like they deserve some say over how their things are used and by whom. Even those that are very generous and want their things be widely shared usually want to have have some voice in making that come to be.
How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to.
At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.
Apart from the 'newspaper' anachronism, that's pretty much still my take.
Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.
You were fine until this bit.
You got to play the copyright game when the big corps were on your side.
Now they're on the other side. Deal with it and get over it.
Meanwhile, the next generation of great artists is already at work down the street from you. Some kids you've never heard of, playing around in a basement or garage you've probably driven past a hundred times. They're learning to make the most of the tools at hand, just like the old masters did. Except the tools at hand this time are little short of godlike.
It's an exciting time. If you wanted things to stay the same, you shouldn't have gone into technology or art.
If you want me to hand some of my work over to artists so they can learn and grow and experiment, send them my way. Happy to help.
Agreed there, which is why it's important to work for open access to the results. The resulting regime won't look much like present-day copyright law, but if we do it right, it will be better for us all.
In other words, instead of insisting that "No one can have this," or "Only a few can have this," which (again) will not be options for works that you release commercially, it's better IMHO to insist that "Everyone can have this."
Please show me where I ever said anything remotely like that. You’re painting my stance as very all or nothing, which is inaccurate.
You’re trying to make me into some caricature that you can grind your axe against, when I’m somebody who doesn’t even agree with modern copyright law. I think we’re past the point of productivity, so I’ll just leave it there. Have a good one
That would be misrepresentation. Even Stallman isn't OK with that. You can take one of his opinion pieces and publish it as your own. Or you can attach his name to it.
However, if you're editing it and releasing it under his name, clearly you're simply lying, and nobody is OK with that. People have the right to be recognized as authors of things they did author (if they so desire) and they have a right to NOT be associated with things they didn't.
> At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer.
The second part is the entirety of the problem. If I'm "exploited" in a way where I can't even notice it, and I'm not worse off for it, how is it even exploitation? But people amassing great power is a problem no matter if they do it with "legitimate" means or not.
Stallman has his opinions on software, I have my opinions on my visual work. I don’t get really how that applies here or why that settles this matter.
That's such a bad straw man I wonder if you're really supporting the position you claim to be supporting. Maybe you're just trying to give it a bad name.
Your opinion isn't on visual work, but visual property. You don't demand to be paid for your work - your labor. Rather you traded that for the dream of being paid rent on a capital object, in perpetuity (or close enough). Artists lost to the power-mongers when we bit at that bait.
I don’t really know where all the hostility came from in this conversation but I think it’s best if we move on.
(to clarify, OpenAI stops refining the image if a classifier detects your image as potentially violating certain copyrights. Although the gulf in resolution is not caused by that.)
[I won't bother responding to the rest of your appalling comment]