Your comment made my day. Thanks.
Anyone spreading this misinformation and trying gatekeep being an artist after the avant-garde movement doesn’t have an ounce of education in art history. Generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that’s shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.
Entertainment.
Their policy could never stop anyone in the first place.
Thanks for digging up that lede.
Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.
This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.
Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them
Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.
They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.
Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.
This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.
If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.
I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.
It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.
They go over that, you should give them another read.
Honestly who cares about being an artist? There’s always going to be snobs trying to tear you down or devalue your efforts. No one questions whether video games are art or not now, but that took like twenty years since people began seriously pushing the subject. The same thing happened with synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s and as a result there are fewer working drummers today, but without these we would not have hip hop or house, and that would have been a huge cultural loss.
Generative art hasn’t found its Marley Marl or Frankie Knuckles yet, but they’re out there, and they’re going to do stuff that will blow our minds. They didn’t need to be artists to change the world.
Using copyrighted works without permission isn’t illegal and shouldn’t be. You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.
I have a feeling this experiment would sooner get the axe than have ads injected. There was initially a waiting list, but just a few days in it was completely open to the public.
Sometimes they just do research. Like when their employees made transformers and nothing came of them until Open AI capitalized on it.
Fair use isn’t a loophole, it is copyright law.