>Wizards of the Coast announced that it has an upcoming Magic the Gathering set which will not only feature AI generated art, but will be composed entirely of AI generated cards using its own extensive database of more than 27,000 cards.
>Unavoidable, the upcoming set, hopes to dodge much of the controversy surrounding the legal implications of AI generated art by only training its program using images it entirely owns the rights to, but this still has generated backlash among both artists and fans of the game. The decision to also make the set consist entirely of completely AI generated cards has even lead several designers on the Wizards' team to complain on X (formerly Twitter).
>When asked to respond to those x's (formerly tweets), a Wizard's spokesperson said, "We look forward to using Artificial Intelligence to help improve the look and feel of Magic the Gathering. Artificial Intelligence is the intelligence of machines or software, as opposed to the intelligence of living beings, primarily of humans. It is a field of study in computer science that develops and studies intelligent machines. We're very excited about the possibilities."
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Thanks for the heads up
A 10/10 for three colorless mana? With no drawbacks except the art has an extra finger? At common?
Sounds like it's gonna be the best selling set of all time.
I know this is just a joke/meme, but I'll point out that Wizards is already using AI art, and has lied about it when caught. For some reason.
genuinely interested in this, got an example?
The only confirmed example so far is some promotional art.
>https://www.polygon.com/24029754/wizards-coast-magic-the-gathering-ai-art-marketing-image
why did the marketing even bother doing this?
Ravnica isn't just the Steampunk plane
Ravnica has now been flanderized into the wacky steampunk plane plus fedoras.
I keep thinking it's set on Capenna.
It's all unused capena art. They shelved it and killed the "cop" cards cause BLM. So they shit out a detective set in ravnica to try and make some quick cash based on name recognition
Even the most cynical person couldn't actually believe this.
no no, that checks out.
t. 8 wis, 7 int
Bruh look at the index finger, it's randomly jutting off away from the camera at the knuckle joint while the other fingers are properly curled for a hand, AND the top of the foreground rocks get confused for the ground the hand is resting on, AND that shoulder blade is fricked, AND the left arm gets cut off by the light explosion effect as if it were opaque, AND one side of the jaw is literally fused to the skull AND the pattern on the filigree on the top of the ring isn't symmetrical or the bottom for that matter, AND the spine curves in and becomes the sternum with the rib bones just disappearing any time they curve behind another rib instead of attaching to anything.
It's either AI or anatomy so bad that the person has literally never seen a human before.
Why, we already have a poo-in-the-loo steampunk city. Ravnica is so much more.
There's also a bunch that ended up in Bigby Presents: Glory of Giants, though that's D&D rather than MtG.
It's a bit nuanced though, because the art was "AI assisted" rather than entirely generated. And, the line of what counts as "AI assisted" is extremely blurry, because people have been doing things like using automatic color correction, content-aware replacement, and similar techniques for their digital art for years without any controversy, and some of the Glory of Giants art pieces that used AI only used it for basically just skipping the last 10% of finessing the picture. It's understandable though, because that last 10% of getting all the details right and polishing everything can often take up more time than the initial 90%.
It was more obvious in the other pictures. It was "AI Assisted" in the way that he took the concept art someone else scribbled up, if I recall correctly, and then fed that into an image-to-image AI and then called it a day.
I thought it was bad before, now there won't even be a human wasting their limited time on the planet to shove this shit on us.
I think the funny thing is that some of the concept art that was used turned out to also be AI "enhanced."
Man, it's got to be looking bleak for professional digital artists if this is the stuff that's happening behind the scenes just to out-compete each other.
>Man, it's got to be looking bleak for professional digital artists if this is the stuff that's happening behind the scenes just to out-compete each other.
If they are smart than they need to write contracts with various companies that state that they can use their art for AI generated stuff, but they need to have a percentile cut every time their art gets used in future sets.
there are no systems in place to ensure this can even happen
>Pay premium price for promotional, limited MtG cards.
>Basically a small piece of art in its own right.
>It's AI shlop.
If anyone is defending this shit they deserve to be hanged upside down and flayed like a pig.
It would be bad if this would be some random common from normal set, but this is a premium set, something that is supposed to have premium quality.
I agree with you in principle but in this specific case it's not promo cards that are being AI-generated, the actual promotional image showing off the cards in that post was the offending AI-generated image.
It's actually kind of comforting to think there's people that desperate to protect us against AI.
I dislike it because too many of them are less interested in protecting us from actual AI risks than they are of protecting us from Skynet.
Getting killed by Skynet would just be embarassing at this point.
Anon, humans often do incredibly embarrassing things. You’re not being comforting.
Hey, at least when the AI uprising comes and they slaughter us in streets they will be modestly clothed, refrain from racial slurs like "meatbags", use the right pronouns and work towards establishing a positive and uplifting environment to kill us in.
It's incredible how reality progresses towards a more made-up sounding and much lamer dystopia than fiction could come up while trying to predict the worst it could get. In fiction it is about the laws of robotics and other similar fail-safes and their philosophies being established and getting eventually circumvented leading to AI harming humans, in reality the top priority in AI ethics is about the AI not showing anyone boobs and being forced to adhere to the contradictory pseudo-morality of the latest fotm social issue.
take a look at this
This doesn't look like A.I. art at all though
The skeleton in the back looks very random and the third eye is very AI.
>the skeleton has a third eye so it's A.I.
Are you serious?
NTA, but if you ask A.I. for a skeleton it will give you a normal skeleton. Go on try it, prompt an A.I. a thousand times for a skeleton, and unless you ask for a third eye it won't give you one.
So if it's a prompt, then the prompt requested an alien skeleton. Or the guy just drew an alien skeleton
This is the only person who isn't a moron.
Granted, the lines look suspicious, but look at Dani Pendergasts art and they all line up as about the same. And she's been doing this for a decade.
>if you ask A.I. for a skeleton it will give you a normal skeleton
You have an awful lot of confidence for someone who has obviously never AI generated anything.
It will not give you a third eye. Again, prove me wrong.
I'm glad to see the resurgence of the "I've seen many shops in my time" experts
Presumably they had the good sense to have an actual artist touch it up but the lines and shadows on the rocks absolutely reek of AI
The skeleton has three eye sockets and what the frick is going on with the rocks in the foreground?
>genuinely interested in this, got an example?
Bigsby's Glory of the Giants had A.I generated art in it despite being sold for full price as a sourcebook and being released shortly after they hardcore virtue signaled about how they totally won't use it.
Like it wasn't even subtle. I've literally played f2p porn games using A.I because the dev can only code and write and can't draw for shit that had better artwork than this garbage, and they want me to PAY for it? The """"""bundle"""""" for this book giving you a digital and physical copy is $70 for frick's sake.
How can you make a sourcebook with barely any rules in it (there's literally one single subclass) and a handful of feats and then ALSO cheap out on the artwork, who the frick is even gonna buy something that's useless except as a paperweight
i think a recent dnd book had some ai art in it
So far, any ai generated art they've used for either D&D or MtG has been, according to them, an accident, and they've thrown the credited artist under the bus in the process.
Their official policy is Anti-AI, but they're also not equipping themselves with a sufficient team of artists to be able to check each piece and make sure no AI is being used. It's kind of ironic, in that AI art is actually creating new art jobs, or at the very least should be creating new art jobs.
>So far, any ai generated art they've used for either D&D or MtG has been, according to them, an accident, and they've thrown the credited artist under the bus in the process.
ie, they're lying
I doubt it, largely because the loss of face in deliberately using AI-generated art despite making numerous public announcements that it will not use AI-generated art really isn't worth it, especially when they're not really paying their artists all that much to begin with. They pay between $200-$600 for most single pieces of art, so saving that would be a pittance for WotC.
You could argue that them paying so little is the issue that forces artists to resort to AI, but that's in part an issue with the market, and Wizards can't really control how much artists are willing to work for. Hell, Hasbro is a public company, so they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders and are legally encouraged to pay as little as they possibly can to everyone that they can.
If they used Bard that'd explain Black Aragorn.
>WE'RE TOTALLY NOT USING AI WE PROMISE
>OKAY THAT ONE TIME WE GOT CAUGHT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT AND WE DIDN'T KNOW
>OKAY THE LAST FEW TIMES WE GOT CAUGHT USING AI IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION WITH THE ARTIST
>NO REALLY WE'RE NOT USING AI WE PROMISE
>okay we're just gonna use AI frick you pay up
I fricking told you paypigs you needed to cut them off. If you homosexuals buy these cards, you deserve financial ruin and testicle cancer.
kino
>x's (formerly tweets),
This is how we know this is a real report from a real newspaper.
It’s “Xitter”, and they’re called “Xcrements”. Get it right, people.
I call them "kisses" uwu
Actually it would be "hugs". The X looks like arms crossing behind the recipient's back, while an O looks like a pair of lips.
You can also remember by "XO" being hugs and kisses, not kisses and hugs.
Weirdly enough, I think most people have it as the opposite, with the X's being kisses. While your own theory makes sense, I do have to point out that when people are being extra spicy and skip the O's and just leave a string of XXXXXXX's, they're usually trying to convey lots of kisses, not lots of hugs.
This will not stand. I declare war on the opposite faction.
Other faction has precedent though.
According to wikipedia, a string of XXXX's and a string of OOOO's, both meant to imply kisses, predates the alternating XOXO. With strings of XXXX's being more common, those got the designation of Kisses before the alternating form was introduced.
My personal guess is that it all actually originated as just a bit of typographical styling, not unlike how some authors end sections with alternating-
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-which just looks fancy. And it's a type of something called a Dinkus, which I'm just mentioning because I rarely get to say Dinkus.
Basically, people just wanted to make the end of their letters look fancy, so they threw in a little ornamentation. From there, it meaning Kisses or Hugs was just a bit of flirting, with neither X's nor O's meant to visually represent either act.
This war is older than all of us, as exemplarised by the unwinnable battle that is tictactoe. Inevitable stalemate, all those lives lost, I no longer care which is which, I just want to go home, kiss my wife, hug my children, and shitpost on social media. Can't we give peace a chance?
I can't tell if this is real or a shitpost
The pic should give it away
good 🙂
I love that thos post itself almost feels AI- generated.
"Write an announcement that Wizards of the Coast is releasing a new AI-generated set."
>hopes to dodge much of the controversy surrounding the legal implications of AI generated art
>still has generated backlash among both artists and fans of the game.
That was stupid if they expected otherwise, AI art is transformative and that legal argument was always bullshit. The only reason it has so much traction is butthurt artists who are either bad faith or just legally illiterate.
The key thing about "transformative" is not just that you're making changes to it, but that you're not attempting to replace the original work or compete with it. If you told an AI to take GRRM's books, chop them up, and then spit out a fantasy novel written in the style of GRRM, it would kind of be like taking a book of photographs, asking someone to rearrange the photographs, and then claiming that you've changed the book and thus it's fair use. It might not be quite to the same level, but it's similar in principle.
The key part of the law concerning "transformative" here is "do not substitute for the original use of the work". Essentially, if you asked ChatGPT to use write lyrics in the style of GRRM's novels for a song, that's likely fair use, though even that can be construed as cutting GRRM out of a potential paycheck. If you use GRRM's style to make a fantasy novel, GRRM's lawyers are going to have strong words for you. There's going to be an argument over whether it's sufficiently transformative, and it's going to be hard to argue that if there's plenty of plagiarized lines of text in your novel that you're not even aware of just how directly they've been lifted.
In any case, for the fair use argument to work, you need to argue that no harm was done to the holder of the copyright. If instead of paying an artist, you feed their work into an AI generator and produce an image in their style, there's a demonstration of harm. The difficulty is determining just how direct it is, which is why it's going to be up to a court to determine it.
>actual legal argument
Impressive, very nice.
>The difficulty is determining just how direct it is
I think this is AI's best defense. To stay with your example, if you fed the AI not just GRRM's work but the entire corpus of fantasy fiction, including GRRM's work, it would be very difficult for him to pick out what came from him, it would probably be less derivative than most fantasy fiction.
On the other hand, if your prompt was "in the style of GRRM", you would have a lot of problems arguing you weren't trying to displace him.
It's a much more complicated question than pretty much anyone is making it sound, if there is justice I think the scope of the training data and the nature of the prompt will have more importance than "hippity hoppity, the robot looked at my artstation, everything the robot makes is my property".
Plagiarism of any kind can be hard to prove, and AI plagiarism in particular can radically transform the original art as well as make it difficult to trace down the original source, but there's often plenty of "tells" that can be pretty damning.
GRRM is actually suing OpenAI because when ChatGPT was prompted to generate a prequel to Game of Thrones, it used plenty of characters and other concepts that GRRM held pretty explicit copyright over. The case is still ongoing since its relatively new and it's going to have pretty large repercussions down the line, but it's kind of hard to say you're not infringing on Game of Thrones when you've got Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister in your novel. Fanfiction is one thing, but that has to be "noncommercial", and ChatGPT is commercial even if the generated work is never sold.
>if you fed the AI not just GRRM's work but the entire corpus of fantasy fiction, including GRRM's work, it would be very difficult for him to pick out what came from him,
Maybe, but perhaps not. You'd need to very, very, very carefully go through the work and make sure there's nothing directly from him, and there's plenty of plagiarism detection software that would be able to determine just how similar the the plagiarized product is as well as detecting not only any lines taken directly from him, but even lines with a certain amount of alteration. Plagiarism is a pretty serious deal, and detecting plagiarism (using AI, ironically enough) has become quite advanced even just over the last few years. Though, using AI to detect AI raises the question of just how much we can trust AI, but frick me if I want to be anywhere near the court room when that bomb drops.
There's going to be arguments all over the place, but in the end it's probably going to end up similar to any time Consumers, Creators, Technology, and Copyright have collided. Whoever has a good lawyer will come out ahead, whoever doesn't will get fricked.
>when ChatGPT was prompted to generate a prequel to Game of Thrones, it used plenty of characters and other concepts that GRRM held pretty explicit copyright over.
No shit. Any human would fail the same test.
>gets told to use an IP
>uses that IP
>gets sued
It's like they want to speedrun showing the AI what massive homosexuals humans are.
>No shit. Any human would fail the same test.
A human with an understanding of copyright law wouldn't fail that test. Being paid to write something without written permission to use copyrighted material? That's asking for a fine and a headache.
Even if it was the copyright holder asking, that was just to demonstrate that anyone could ask for the same thing and that there was no concern whatsoever if there was written permission or not.
The funny thing is that Microsoft and OpenAI are now developing their AIs to be able to specifically dodge copyright laws, like avoiding using identical character/place names. The next time GRRM asks for a prequel to Game of Thrones, he's going to be treated to a fantasy novel following Edward Stake through Western Eos.
>Being paid to write something without written permission to use copyrighted material? That's asking for a fine and a headache.
Autism. There's fanfiction anywhere. You tell a normie to write a story about Iron Man, they write a story about Iron Man.
Publish it? Sell it for money? No. But neither did the AI. It was asked to perform a task, and it performed it. Is the AI supposed to somehow assume you don't have the rights to ask what question you're asking it? That's not cumbersome at all.
>Siri, who is Iron Man?
>I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid if I answer that question you will publish it online and break copyright
>No. But neither did the AI.
The problem is the AI did do it for money, ie. it had to be accessed via a subscription or was otherwise gated.
Originally, OpenAI was supposed to have ChatGPT be both open source (as in, be an Open AI) and entirely free, but they established a subscription-based tier model with people paying for access, and that's where it no longer qualifies as producing fanfiction and instead is trying to make money.
Okay, but by the same measure commissioning an artist for fanart of your favorite character is also going to be breaking copyright. And fanart (or porn) is one of the biggest sources of revenue for commission based artists.
Also to be honest hearing that it is GRRM pushing the allegations kind of makes me take it with a grain of salt as the man is known for being extremely anti-fanfiction and argues everyone should make original characters and stories.
>Okay, but by the same measure commissioning an artist for fanart of your favorite character is also going to be breaking copyright.
It is, and that's technically illegal. But, that tends to be more of a matter of trademark if they plan on drawing the character and not just copying them from an existing image, and the laws involving trademarks are a bit more flexible when it comes to commissioned works for private use, especially because some measure of parody-use can be used as a defense and the main purpose of trademarks is preventing people from thinking you represent the rights holder. If you make it quite clear you're not attempting to pretend to be the original artist/company that owns the trademark and the buyer is fully aware and also does not plan on selling the art, it falls into a bit of a legal gray area that most companies and countries ignore. It's still technically illegal, though.
Characters, by themselves, are not usually protected by copyright, but instead as part of a larger work. For example, Mickey Mouse is trademarked. The film Steamboat Willy was copyrighted. That means that even though Steam Boat Willy has become part of the Public Domain, and you can use images of Mickey Mouse from that specific cartoon, you can't use more modern depictions of Mickey Mouse because the character is still protected by trademark. You can make fanart of Mickey Mouse on commission, and while that's illegal it'll probably be fine, but if you even just put three circles in a specific configuration and put them on a t-shirt with the intent to sell it you will have the worst lawyers in the world feasting on your innards within hours.
Also, as a side note, an incredible amount of porn is incredibly illegal. There's plenty that exists in the wonderful gray area of "porn of these characters is not substituting for the original use of the character unless the rights holder has made porn of the characters themselves" though.
>Also, as a side note, an incredible amount of porn is incredibly illegal.
as we are talking about IP law, i assume you mean porn parodies which are exactly that: parody. they are legal because they are clearly parody.
they're referring to parody because parody constitutes "fair use" of trademarked material. i.e. spaceballs
it probably wouldn't hold up in court, though. there's protection for transformative work, but you would have an extremely difficult time arguing that a scooby-doo porno is making any comment on the original.
it's like when people stick a fair use - educational disclaimer on their uploads of shit. it's still obviously piracy
if there was an legal leg to stand on you absolutely know disney would go after avengers porn parodies and such, at least ones produced by major porn studios. making a porn version of something is transformative, transformative isn't limited to "making a comment on the thing it is parodying."
Shh he's smarter than Disney's lawyers, he's gonna defeat Skynet with facts and logic, let him cook.
It’s transformative in the sense that it’s not competing directly as pointed out here
. What do you think Disney is going to do when the porn studio ask where their porn is?
>if there was an legal leg to stand on you absolutely know disney would go after avengers porn parodies and such, at least ones produced by major porn studios.
yes because they want "Avengers porn" to be in the news/ trending on twitter
"can sue" and "will sue" are millions of miles apart
>if there was an legal leg to stand on you absolutely know disney would go after avengers porn parodies and such, at least ones produced by major porn studios.
I wish this didn't sound tinfoil-hatty, but there's speculation that there's under-the-table deals at play.
https://macleans.ca/society/technology/how-porn-parodies-avoid-copyright-restrictions/
Companies like Disney can't acknowledge that they officially condone any porn parodies, but those parodies both make a lot of money and act as free advertisement, and in no way can be confused with Disney's brand. If there's an under-the-table deal, it's all win-win for Disney.
Parody has limits, and a lot of porn uses things like 3D models ripped right from the game, with the models themselves being copyrighted and they are still being used for their original purpose; ie. representing a character. Character models are a particularly interesting bit of copyright law, because in some ways they're treated as art and other ways they're treated as software, and copyright law concerning software are pretty extreme.
It's like going from a playground to a warzone. People don't frick around with software copyright violations.
The video doesn't include the actual 3d models, just images of them in a parody. If playing a video game is transformative, so is this.
I'm tired of people who don't understand basic fair use.
>The video doesn't include the actual 3d models, just images of them
Which were generated through the unauthorized use of the 3D models. It's no different from using any protected bit of code. The violation is using software copied from a game, and the model's software is still doing exactly what it was designed to do.
By your argument, if I photographed a painting and put that photo on a t-shirt, that would be sufficiently transformative, because the t-shirts don't include the actual painting, just an image of it.
>buy a photoshop subscription (ugh)
>use photoshop to draw the superman logo
>DC sues photoshop for copyright violation because photoshop didn't stop you from drawing the superman logo
This is what you're saying.
No? The AI is what is making it legally speaking and this wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t for the fact the AI is being used to compete with creatives for money. Them taking money and it generating stuff based on other images (rather than it just being used as a tool like photoshop) that are in direct competition with the creatives undermines the transformative argument.
>rather than it just being used as a tool like photoshop
That is what kills your entire argument, because AI is just a tool as well. Does the user, who supplied the prompt, have no agency in this? The one who supplies the prompt and publishes the supposedly illegal artwork?
>no because it's easier to go after the AI to protect my shitty art racket, if I go after the user people will realize it's no different than other fan art that has survived for decades
I see.
>because AI is just a tool as well. Does the user, who supplied the prompt, have no agency in this?
No matter than a person making a commission to an artist or writer. That’s the detail you missed. AI are trying to replace the role of the artist or author in the vein of commissions.
Small detail. The AI is not legally a person. The person who supplied the prompt is the one who broke copyright, and only if they publish it.
You would need to establish that selling a tool that can be used to break the law is tantamount to breaking the law, or that the tool can be culpable somehow. That hasn't been the case in millennia.
You're literally trying to argue that people don't misspell words, pencils misspell words.
Technically speaking it’s the owner of the AI that’s breaking the law since they control what it can output. Also I’d direct you to this guy
.
Photoshop did not draw the logo, and couldn't. Likewise, an image generation program could not draw the superman logo from a simple text prompt of "Draw me the Superman Logo" unless it had access to protected images and copied it from them. In that case, it would be the program accessing something it doesn't have the rights to. Without those images, you'd really need to go out of your way describing the logo before it would be generated, and it'd be hard to put the blame on the image generator software at that point because it didn't copy anything from a protected source and was only following your instructions, and you would be the one violating copyright by referencing some specific instance of the logo.
Also, the Superman Logo is protected by trademark, not copyright. Specific instances of the logo are protected by copyright though. It's confusing as frick, but they do protect different things.
>Also, the Superman Logo is protected by trademark, not copyright. Specific instances of the logo are protected by copyright though. It's confusing as frick, but they do protect different things.
Actually friend, I have a book on the fundamentals of Intellectual Properties so I could precisely explain the difference for you if you want.
The "Superman Logo" is something of a transitive concept, and has changed and evolved over the years. It, as a whole, is protected by trademark, because every instance of it can be used to signal that DC has given permission of its use. DC has registered the trademark, and was able to do so because it also owned the copyrights and the logo is used as a symbol of the company.
Each individual instance of it, however, is also protected by copyright. That means that in 2033, the original Superman Logo will no longer be protected by copyright, since it will be 95 years after the publication of the first Superman comic. The other logos, however, will remain protected by copyright, and the Superman Logo itself will continue to be protected by trademark.
In 2033, when Action Comics #1's copyright expires, you will be able to make comics featuring Superman named Clark Kent, a powerful alien superhero, as long as you make it quite clear you are not DC comics. But, whether or not Clark Kent can fly is going to be a difficult topic, because he only gained that power later, in publications that will still be protected under copyright, and the character itself will continue to be protected by trademark.
One fear I have is creators can already struggle with copyright strikes against them and a worry have about AI litigation is inadvertently giving companies more power to do so. As any decision is going to set a precedent of what counts as transformative.
Really part of the issue with the debate about AI is it is kind of calling attention to the fact that ownership of digital media is an extremely dubious concept when any piece can be copied and edited by someone else. I do have friends who are extremely anti-AI and I find it amusing that they are also extremely pro-piracy and scanlation. I think most people only really care about concepts of plagiarism and theft when it is seen as "punching down". People cheer that Robin Hood steals from the rich, but the sheriff and king is evil for excessive taxation.
I think being against punching down is pretty basic human morality. Don't hit women because they're weak, don't hurt babies because they can't defend themselves, don't abuse animals because they're stupid, etc., but all of these moral stipulations have direct contradictions in western law already, so at the end of the day it really is just who has the better lawyers, and the better lawyers are in corporate legal departments.
Copyright law, at its core, exists to make creative careers possible. Bad faith actors misusing it is stupidly common, and lawyers have a way of making King John come out on top more often than not, but without the laws we'd really be in much worse shape.
I'm personally not a fan of copyright being too strict, such as in the case of making fanworks illegal. In general, I think existing copyright laws concerning fair use are pretty sufficient, even if I myself habitually break them from the consumer side of things. I respect the principle of them, in the same way I respect the principle of speeding limits even if I always go 10 miles above them.
I don't think most people are asking for new AI laws so much as they're just asking for existing laws to apply to AI. A lot of people are mystified by what AI does, and imagine something far more magical and inexplicable than what's actually happening. Add that to a lot of confusion concerning copyright law in general, and right now AI exists in a bit of a wild west where people are breaking laws left and right but hoping they're moving too fast for the law to catch up. In some cases, it's great, and I applaud the people going ten miles above the speed limit and helping all of us go a little faster. But, there are those who are clearly just going to frick things up for all of us, and they need limits put on them before things get out of hand.
I'm neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, and I'm a writer/artist/animator. At the end of the day, it's a tool, and some people will use it/control it well and some people will be evil fricks with it/controlling it. The best we can hope for is that everyone educates themselves on how the technology works and understands how to be fair and responsible with it. The AI "debate" is often less about AI itself and just people getting confused either by other debates or simply how the technology works to begin with. It's the current buzzword, and it's easy to get distracted by it.
>Copyright law, at its core, exists to make creative careers possible
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hyperbolic antics aside, more people need to recognize that copyright is a corporate cudgel for beating smaller competitors into submission. The law is not your friend. The legal system isn't there to protect you. You have a better chance of winning the lottery than ever being a legitimate situation where copyright will be something that actually matters to you.
>You have a better chance of winning the lottery than ever being a legitimate situation where copyright will be something that actually matters to you.
... my daily work involves copyright law extensively. Not a week goes by without some communication with a lawyer. Most of it involves making sure anything we're not creating entirely ourselves is being done legally, either via purchasing licenses, establishing fair use, or otherwise ensuring we're not infringing on anyone's rights. But, we also occasionally have to deal with sending out a copyright claim against someone who has stolen something from us and decided to pass it off as their own.
Basically, my group plays fair. We do original stuff, and anything we use that isn't original is fairly sourced. On the other side of things, there are people who steal from anyone and everyone they can for as long as they can, and many manage to go pretty far before getting caught.
Plagiarism and theft sucks. Copyright helps. It's not perfect, but things would be a lot, lot worse without it.
It doesn't matter to YOU, it matters to the companies you work for, dipshit.
shove your dick in a blender
Thanks for conceding. It takes a big man to admit he's a moronic homosexual.
I'm talking about non-corporate work though.
I will admit that the lawyers I work with are part of a larger corporation and that I'm getting an incredible discount for their services because of my past relationship with them at that corporation. I'll also say that not having access to lawyers, especially lawyers who are experts on usage rights, is a pretty big barrier and that even though I'm pretty well versed in copyright law I still am severely under-equipped to deal with fending off copyright claims (which is why I go to great lengths to avoid anything that might trigger one) or issuing them out myself. Overall, they're expensive and I wish we lived in a world where lawyers weren't neccesary, but the sad thing is that we live in a world where some people are just buttholes.
Lawyers are kind of like nukes in that if you don't have them, you are at risk of being fricked over by someone who does have them.
Or you just ignore them. They can issue all the stuff they want and declare that you're breaking the law or whatever, but until they're out there enforcing that law, I don't give a shit and neither should you.
Creating something of financial value that you individually hold the copyright to is, indeed, better than winning the lottery. I don't think it's less common but I do think it's better. If that step weren't protected then creators would hold all the cards, they're definitely better at packaging ideas and selling them, they're definitely better at creating demand, they're definitely better at farming talent from poor wagies (which they do anyway, even in a world with copyright law, it would just be a lot easier without copyright law, and the art would be a lot worse).
>Go on try it, prompt an A.I. a thousand times for a skeleton, and unless you ask for a third eye it won't give you one.
lmao
>If that step weren't protected then creators would hold all the cards,
lol, if only. I meant corporations. Corporations would hold the cards.
See the image in
Creating is the only step that an individual can do better than a committee, that's why it's the protected step.
What you think you're describing is a creator making something, anything, and being imbued with the poorman's copyright. An inherent ownership over his creation and the rights to do with it whatever he pleases. Corporations will see this creator's divine act of creation and kneel at his feet, knowing that they cannot simply take said creation without compensation first, for they are powerless before the creator who has the law on his side.
What will actually happen in the best case scenario is a lowball offer will be made, if a company even cares in the first place. Assuming the art, writing, whatever is actually distinct, unique, and identifiable enough on its own that it can't simply be imitated or already said to be overtly inspired by something else. Despite the glorified sanctity of the independent creator, they are doing the same thing all artists and creators have done by taking inspiration from other people's creations. Nothing can really stop a larger company from doing the same thing and they have the benefit of being able to bankrupt smaller companies and creators with legal fees if they feel like it, assuming the other party even has a legitimate claim to some wholly original idea that isn't derivative of other ideas in the first place.
>What you think you're describing is a creator making something, anything, and being imbued with the poorman's copyright.
...that's how it works. Copyright isn't like trademarks, which you need to register. Copyright is automatic, and even just self-publishing something online is protected by copyright.
Okay. Now keep reading.
What point are you trying to make?
>What will actually happen in the best case scenario is a lowball offer will be made
It depends on what we're talking about, in no small part because there have been situations where insane bidding wars have erupted over a particular IP. The actual best case scenario is an independent creator takes their IP to a company, like a publishing house, and works with them and their lawyers while retaining the majority of the rights themselves.
Look at Harry Potter, for instance, with JK Rowling holding onto the book IP. You're right, that a dozen companies and a thousand authors made "Wizard school" imitations after HP became popular, and HP itself is derivative of many earlier works, but the Harry Potter name itself has its own value, to the tune of something like a billion dollars.
That's of course the literal best case scenario, with JK Rowling being the richest author in the world. I think the issue though is that you're getting hung up about something like "ideas" when "ideas" are a dime a dozen, and the real value of something protected by copyright is the combined totality of those ideas. A wizard school is a five cent idea. A wizard school with a cast of characters and a developed history and several hundred pages of accessible narrative is a billion dollar idea.
Harry Potter, as an IP, has value because of its popularity and widespread recognition. Not just because of the idea itself. By the time the bidding wars start on any creator's work, it has to essentially become a company or a brand unto itself. People going on about their copyrights and hemming and hawing about their work possibly being stolen by AI are acting as if they've already got that globe-spanning billion dollar IP, when what they've got is fanart and fanfiction in most cases.
>Harry Potter, as an IP, has value because of its popularity and widespread recognition.
The main value of HP is people actually like the books, ie. that JK Rowling's writing had mass appeal. The texts themselves are the main value propping up the entire brand; they're the reason the brand got any popularity or widespread recognition. They're easy to read, and were a step above most children's books, with most other examples having a bad way of "talking down" to children in a way children find off-putting, which is actually present in the early chapters of the first book and fade as the series progresses. Rowling managed to hit just the right mark by being just slightly incapable of writing books for adults, as evidenced by her attempts at writing adult fiction.
It's almost by accident that Rowling found a winning formula, and there's also an enormous amount of credit due to her editor who cut out her worst ideas that would have torpedoe'd the books before they got off the ground (like having five main characters instead of three, and making Ron and Neville just whiny losers while Dean Thomas cracked jokes. Dropping it to three, and giving Dean's jokes to Ron basically gave Ron something to like about him and a personality beyond just being Harry's orbiter.) Ultimately, the value of HP is inherent in the original material. A lot of effort and thought went into writing the books, and they're so well regarded by the masses that they've propped up everything from two mediocre film series, several mediocre video game series, and a thoroughly mediocre Broadway play. No matter how mediocre everything else may be, the books themselves being excellent examples of children's literature is enough to keep everything afloat.
>What will actually happen in the best case scenario is a lowball offer will be made, if a company even cares in the first place
Right. This is a huge improvement over a world where patrons own artists and have complete creative control and other artists just don't exist. Copyright law allows independent creators to participate in the economy, which they wouldn't otherwise be able to do, because companies can outdo them at everything else.
Are you a libertarian? You're pointing out a flaw in a beneficial system as an excuse to tear down the whole system without offerying any alternative, this makes me think that you might be a libertarian. Every single thing that you have chosen to complain about is a thing that would be worse without copyright law.
Sorry I ran out of space to laugh at you.
AXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA
Okay, I'm done. Yes, please tell me how NO CREATIVE CAREERS were possible before copyright lawyers became a thing and please tell me how copyright protects the small artist compared to the times it's been used by large corporations to frick the little man over. NEWFLASH moron! Copyright in the modern sense was created BY corporations to protect their product identities.
Creative careers used to be based on a patronage system, where artists, writers, and musicians were essentially fancy pets for rich people.
Copyright wasn't as big an issue as it is now, because the skill and time required to make a copy wasn't all too far away from what it took to make the original. Books had to be copied by hand, copying a painting required access to the painting, and music notation was still in development and there was no such thing as musical recordings. Hell, copying books wasn't so much a crime as it was a valuable and important task that was a religious vocation for some.
Travel down the ages, and we get to the point where copying someone else's work becomes trivially easy. Printers, photography, sound recording, etc, all have made copying and distributing other people's work require a mere fraction of the initial creator's effort and ability. Without copyright laws, a creator has no way of competing with people who simply steal their work and sell it themselves.
While corporations, with Disney as the most infamous, have done their best to pervert copyright law to suit their own needs, the functioning principle behind copyright doesn't work without people believing in it. There is a social understanding that respecting copyright either directly or indirectly helps create more in the vein of that work, which is why some people go above and beyond just respecting copyright and do things like purchasing multiple copies of a single album just to "support the artist." Of course, not everyone believes in it that strongly, particularly where corporations are concerned, hence our widespread piracy.
While you're right, in that corporations frick over the little man, they do so in just about every walk of life, and Corps do feed some creators. Creators are generally going to end up as the pet of some rich entity, and that's largely irrelevant to the question of copyright, since that was the case even before copyright became a necessity.
tl;dr
Copyright is bad and if you support it, you're a globalist pedophile who hates the common man. You absolutely had a massive amount of quality art before copyright and it hurts artists more than helps them.
> You absolutely had a massive amount of quality art
All of it which was commissioned by nobles or clergy, the only people who could afford to support the time/equipment/studies of an artist. It wasn't until the printing press and copyright laws protecting people's writing that writers were able to become financially independent, and it was much later that some painters and musicians were able to avoid the patronage system.
>it hurts artists more than helps them.
...how?
The most it can do to hurt an artist is keep them from copying something. When corporations try to perform bad-faith attacks on artists, they rarely use copyright and instead invoke trademark laws, since they have much stronger footing there. Fradulent copyright claims/Copyfraud/etc. make up less than 1% of claims made, so its hardly a major vehicle for companies to bully the common man. It's just not as valuable, and if corporations care about one thing, it's money.
Copyright and trademark are the "same thing" in the sense of what domain of society they fall under. But barring that, copyright trolls are a thing, as is abusing algorithms to do copyright strikes on Youtube, or how the FOSS movement got subverted by corporate prostitutes and lawyers. Also: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/serving-big-company-interests-copyright-crisis
Point is, I can give you a thousand examples of how copyright hurts people and benefits corporations. You're just bleating on about how it's supposed to work. You say that art used to be exclusive and only the richest could afford it? Good, I am in favor of that. I think that if there were less "artists" the value of art as a whole would increase. I also differentiate between "artists" and "illustrators." (Which is also why the term "AI art" is nonsensical - it can never be art.) Point is, YOU are just a corporate bootlicker prostitute and cannot actually prove your point with empirical data.
Uh-huh. Fairly sources according to you. And buying licenses according to bullshit copyright law. Point is, corporations shouldn't have any copyright protections.
>cannot actually prove your point with empirical data.
We do have stats on things like copyright strikes on Youtube. 95.5% of strikes are not even contested, and Youtube makes it incredibly easy to contest a strike, without initially even having to get lawyers involved. It may not always be easy to win out against a strike, but not even contesting it makes it sound like the vast majority of strikes might be legitimate.
>Point is, I can give you a thousand examples of how copyright hurts people and benefits corporations.
Just a thousand?
I can give you a thousand examples of how they helped people just by letting you look at the credits to any big-budget movie.
All those people? Got paid. Did they get paid enough? If they weren't in the first thirty or so names, almost certainly not, but a paycheck is a paycheck. Hell, look at a shit movie, and realize that even if that movie bombed, just about everyone in the credits still got paid.
Sure, it's not much, but it's something, and that something is in part thanks to copyright protections. I'm not sure if this is really the venue to open up a greater argument about Capitalism, Corporations, and all the rest, but really, you're getting really confused here by thinking anything a corporation does or that may benefit a corporation is going to be evil. It's excessively idealistic and absolutist.
I'm not here to try and fix Capitalism. But, you might want to ease off a little. Yes, corporation bad, grr grr, but copyrights?
Did you get your youtube video get taken down for using In the End or something?
All of those people would've been paid anyway, regardless of copyright. Again, you seem to have this weird fricking idea that before modern copyright laws existed, artists and creatives didn't exist and didn't get paid. They did and they did and you're a goddamn corporate bootlicker. Corporations are ALWAYS bad and you have yet to prove a concrete example of how copyright benefits the little man. Because I have already provided a plethora of examples
>copyright trolls
specific example Round Rock Research
>large corpos taking down Youtubers
specific example Games Workshop and Emperor Speech Device
>FOSS subverted
International Intellectual Property Alliance
Your move, bootlicker.
>All of those people would've been paid anyway, regardless of copyright.
That's not how it works.
You're imagining that a mass market that exists as it does because of copyright protections would be able to sustain itself without those protections, all without comprehending that the vast majority of artists and creatives that existed prior to the necessity of copyright did not create works for a mass market but instead for select, extraordinarily wealthy clients who in many ways were worse than any corporation that attempt to appeal to the masses. It's ugly, but it's at least somewhat democratic.
I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to explain these basic ideas to you, because it sounds like you're intentionally missing the point. It's very hard to actually survive as a creator, and if you removed the ability to profit from your own work by eliminating copyright, what do you think would happen?
What's your proposed alternative business model: begging?
>Games Workshop and Emperor Speech Device
Oh wow, it's not using "In the End" but it's pretty darn close.
>you have yet to prove a concrete example of how copyright benefits the little man.
You've yet to show how it harms the little man. The ESD is an excellent example of a "little man" that was entirely dependent on feeding on the excrement produced by a corporation, and when the corporation plugged its butt, the pathetic little man starved.
Without being able to protect its IP, Games Workshop ceases to exist. It can't turn a profit. Without copyright and the corporation at the start, the "little man" would have had nothing to exploit. Games Workshop is a particularly painful example for you, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating their own independent science fiction universe that they hold all the rights to, but you've instead decided there's some measure of value in a thoroughly mediocre one shat out by a company in order to sell overpriced bits of plastic.
>GW can't exist
Yes it can. Even without copyright people are mindless fricking morons who can't conceive of rigorous game rules/making their own models. I proved to my WH40k buddies that "Yes, it's possible to play 40k entirely for free on Roll20, without paying for the books or the models" and they're still buying those plastic soldier.
>artists wouldn't produce for the mass market
Yes they would, because as the Internet has shown, the moment artists became widely reachable, they started making bank drawing. Like I'm not even talking about the "wealthy furry meme." I'm not wealthy but I have periodically scraped up some amount of money to get character art and map art for my games and just for my own viewing pleasure. Pic fricking related. I just paid an arist, who drew it for me, and no copyright nonsense needed to get involved.
>democratic
No.
>needing copyright to profit off your work
No. I actually have made money doing game design - I worked on the WotC Ravnica books - no question of copyright comes up because you can't copyright game mechanics. And with that, the only thing preventing you from making your own game about a fantasy ecumenopolis with ten guilds that run the place is just you believing in yourself.
I mean not YOU specifically, you're a corporate bootlicker so you aren't actually a person, but someone certainly could.
>Even without copyright people are mindless fricking morons who can't conceive of rigorous game rules/making their own models.
And there's plenty of smarter people who would be able to make those models cheaper than GW and would be able to sell them instead of GW. GW is currently selling its bits of plastic at markups of something like 4000x the material cost; copyright is keeping 3rd parties from running them out of business. Why else would GW be so vigilant for recasters?
>Yes they would, because as the Internet has shown, the moment artists became widely reachable, they started making bank drawing.
Oh, oh no.
Oh, you poor child.
You don't know.
Most artists starve to death. The more visible ones are the outliers. Most can't make a living off of art alone. It's not a career, but a hobby. Even incredibly talented artists struggle to make ends meet without a 2nd job or other form of support. The average yearly wages for an artist is 60k, and that's skewed by outliers who make millions. The majority of artists barely scrape together 40k a year. And, that's full time, talented artists, making not much more than New York's minimum wage, with 1/5 of full time artists making even less than $15 an hour.
In the Dune appendix, the ecologist explains that the resources within a system do not necessarily check the number of organisms in that system, but the quality of life for those organisms. In other words, people will eke out an existence regardless of hardship. Artists will continue to survive, but it's the quality of life they have that becomes the question.
>I just paid an arist, who drew it for me, and no copyright nonsense needed to get involved.
How many hours did they work, and how much did you pay. I'm guessing $90, and if it only took the artist six hours, that would be $15 an hour. I'm guessing it actually took more than six hours though.
That's what you think artists can live off of. "Making bank," as you put it.
Yeah? I don't think artists should make a livable wage unless they're really good. They should do something else.
They are really good. The problem is that the economics of the industry are heavily skewed against them and always have been. Many of the greatest artists that ever lived died destitute, and countless others had to give up as artists and pursue other careers before they had a chance to become any good. Careers like German Chancellors even.
>I proved to my WH40k buddies that "Yes, it's possible to play 40k entirely for free on Roll20, without paying for the books or the models" and they're still buying those plastic soldier.
To be fair the actual models are half or more of the appeal of warhammer since the game itself could generously be called dogshit so playing it purely for the game itself isn't a great time
He's made a lot of funny arguments and I don't think we'll catch them all, I think he's making them faster than we can laugh at them.
In a world without copyright the whole gaming industry would be owned by Rubbermaid, and most of the stories (which are what people actually care about) wouldn't have ever existed.
I don't really care about the argument between you two I just wanted to pick at his implication that warhammer is worth playing purely for the wargame itself
>You say that art used to be exclusive and only the richest could afford it? Good, I am in favor of that.
>Point is, YOU are just a corporate bootlicker
What a clown.
Let's get rid of IP laws so we can go back to the good old days of the fricking 1600s. Back when the creative industries were thriving.
holy frick you are stupid. IP law is not what made it possible for a much larger percentage of the population to engage with creative industries, it was the industrial revolution. the fact that less hands were needed to tend larger swaths of land, we shifted away from an agrarian centred economy because more people had more free time and still needed money. you are so fricking stupid it hurts.
The printing press vastly predates both the Industrial Revolution as well as copyright law, with copyright also coming before the Industrial Revolution. So, we have three distinct periods: After the printing press, after copyright, and after the industrial revolution. Can you guess when we first saw authors become independently wealthy?
It was not after the printing press, which numerous presses printing throughout Europe in 1500 and on. Publishers at the time were free to steal from each other, and the name of the game thus was to produce new material rapidly. In order to do this, wealthy publishers took on the role that clergy and nobles performed: becoming the patrons of writers. However, the presses were not able to survive on the proceeds of just the works of their own sponsored writers, in no small part because not long after they published anything themselves, their rivals would just copy the work if it proved popular. In essence, it was impossible for a writer to live off the proceeds of their own work (since only a fraction of any popular work would reach the initial publisher), and publishers supported writers at a loss because the role of a supported writer was to give the publisher a measure of prestige and a small edge over their competition, and would otherwise be financed by the publishers publishing the works of other authors. Even the most famous and successful writers at the time were unable to survive off the proceeds of their writing, and all either required patrons or had money from some other source.
Fast forward two hundred years, right past a whole bunch of sloppy laws created by publishing guilds to try and organize their own industry, and we arrive at the Statute of Anne in 1710. It provided the basics of copyright law that persist to this day, and what happened was almost immediately we saw authors able to become independently wealthy, such as Alexander Pope, who was able to live off his writing, though admittedly a good chunk of that was from his translations of the Illiad and Odyssey rather than his own poems and essays. His translation of the Illiad, published in 1713, earned him 1200 guineas, which was an amount that astounded people was being paid to an author.
The Industrial revolution came after that, with its beginnings around 1760 and gathering steam in the 1800's. Before then though, there were many other authors who managed to make fortunes off of their novels, including Denis Diderot, Olaudah Equiano and Henry Fielding. They were able to live off of the proceeds of their writing, without needing patrons, though the much shorter length of copyrights did lead Diderot to come into financial hardship as some of his more popular copyrights elapsed.
Copyright is pretty important.
Wow that's a lot of fricking moronic bullshit that doesn't actually prove that copyright law is wholly necessary and required for creators to be able to make and sell their own work.
Copyright is not important and it's a fricking crying shame that so many people have taken to imagining themselves as temporarily embarassed IP Barons.
...That's a weird way to try to argue.
Just saying "That doesn't prove anything" is weird.
Are you the guy who tried to argue that it was the industrial revolution that enable writers to escape the patronage system? Despite authors being able to survive on the proceeds of their work prior to it, but not before copyright laws?
Are you going to actually try to present an argument, or is it going to be another "I'm just going to deny your point exists and not present any of my own" again?
What's there to argue? Your claim is moronic. Creators can make money without ever having to read a word of copyright law. Everything else in the world changed and you're pointing to a clusterfrick of laws that have been mangled over and over again to suit corporate interests and saying that those were the only meaningful difference in the arc of human history that mattered and things only changed because of those laws, not in spite of them. You're a fricking moron.
Creators could always make money.
They couldn't, however, make enough money directly from their work to make a career out of it. They needed to rely on patronage, which meant only extremely rich entities could support them, and most were barely paid enough to live.
Please, actually read what's being said, it'll save us all a lot of time.
Not anon your replying to, but in all honesty that doesn't really sound all that much different from today. Most money to be made in art is being hired for professional artwork and design by companies, which are the wealthy patrons of today. Very few, I would wager less than 1%, of artists can live by producing and selling art directly by itself with no other kind of supporting job, and that was before AI became a thing.
What a pompous unintelligent person. I'd put money on him being libertarian.
>doesn't actually prove that copyright law is wholly necessary and required for creators to be able to make and sell their own work.
It does, actually, because if companies can make cheap copies of your work it means that you can't sell your work. Copyright law is the only thing that allows individual creators to compete with companies.
The only alternative is an industrialized and dehumanized version of the patronage system, where companies have complete creative control and creators just sell their time like any other wagie. Which is what we're moving towards now.
Q: "Why are we moving towards that now?"
A: "Because creators sign contracts giving up their intellectual property rights."
If you wanted to improve the system you'd shorten the durations of intellectual property laws, instead we (by which I mean Disney) has been increasing them. Obviously, no creator needs 100 years to make money on his work, this is to make it so that one company can own our whole mythos which is obviously bad. The next step will be to make it so that copyright law isn't automatic and has to be registered (and probably paid for).
>the 1600s
is that supposed to be a bad thing
Sounds more like people are pro-so,ething when they win. Company AI means less good stuff, the company makes money. Nothing to win for them. Piracy, they get shit for free!
How much does this matter when companies just train AI on their own copyrighted work?
I'm the other anon but literally zero, which is what shows it isn't really what the average AI-hater has against it.
It's a difficult question, because even though they own the rights to anything their writers/artists produced while working for them, they do not own the rights to future works by those writers/artists, and right now various writers/artists Unions/Guilds are fighting to make it so that any future AI work generated from someone's work is a breach of contract unless otherwise outlined. Essentially, the contracts right now allow companies to do basically whatever they want because AI was never even considered when the contracts were initially written, but that's rapidly changing.
It's similar to the controversy in regards to using CGI versions of actors. Years ago, contracts basically had nothing concerning the topic, so companies were free to do so if they held the rights to the character/actor's likeness. But, because of the leaps in technology, actors are now signing much, much stricter contracts in regards to what can be done with their likeness and what compensation they will receive from it.
>it would kind of be like taking a book of photographs, asking someone to rearrange the photographs, and then claiming that you've changed the book and thus it's fair use.
More like taking 50000 books of photographs and breaking every photo up into hundreds of thousands of tiny pieces, and then rearranging those into new "photos"... and that's not even getting into what sort of things people can actually copyright in the first place and then proving that they have some sort of inalienable right to be hired and paid to make something specific.
Obviously, if you used and AI to create a fantasy novel series called "The Throne Game" and it had a ton of overtly derivative and copied, but reworded/renamed concepts that followed the same plot of the originals, you'd be in deep shit... But at the same time, mockbusters and dollar store knockoffs get away with being legally distinct all the time, and GRRM can't sue anyone for having a book that features a girl with 3 dragons as pets, or an icy northern continent.
The problem with asking for a novel in the style of GRRM is that it makes GRRMs works weigh much more heavily on the algorithm, and if the weight is heavy enough for it to be recognized as his style there's a good chance there's going to be some direct plagiarism. ChatGPT is built on a foundation of not just 50,000 books, but the equivalent text to well over a billion books. But, once you narrow its focus to a single task, it becomes quite easy to coax it to commit plagiarism. GRRM's will be used as a heavily skewed priority, and the amount of proofreading and cross-referencing required to make sure there's not entire lines being ripped from his books would probably make writing a book from scratch seem easier.
OpenAI is working to make ChatGPT able to avoid copyright issues better, like learning how to avoid using specific character names and other obvious copyright violations, but people are also constantly working on figuring out how to jailbreak ChatGPT just through the use of creative prompts that sidestep or brute force past various blocks and limitations. The issue with ChatGPT is that even its developers are unaware of all of its potential uses and applications, and even the smartest team of software engineers with a deep understanding of the technology really has no way of competing with the entirety of the internet, especially if some of that internet is horny.
This would be a more compelling argument if AIs were just collage machines. Unfortunately, they're not that simple. AI's are tuned to create certain relationships between their input and their output by trying to match known cases... which is the same way every audio and video codec was tuned as well. Using these tunings, some less specific inputs can be used to create outputs which capture some of the key relationships a human would be looking for, and notably the ones that are difficult to verbalize.
Granted, before anyone says anything, it's still not new creation in a pure artistic sense because it's just catering towards expectations and likely relationships.
Additionally, most of these "we only trained it on our own data" claims tend to be crap. These companies don't tend to have the millions of samples necessary to produce some of the highly general output many AIs seek to produce. Most of the time it's just taking a pre-trained model and giving it effectively a "refresher course" using just their content.
Finally, if anyone wants to argue against AI for using content open to scrape off the web for its initial training... then they should be protesting the fact that MP3 used Suzanne Vega's Tom's Diner as the main test case
Your OP was written by an AI.
Breaking news: AI works on its art more than OP.
if you hate it so much why don't you sweep it up already to earn your monthly paycheck of zero dollars already troony janny
I remember when this slampig was posted all over /tg/. What's her name again, Celeste?
Good ol' Cestree, dating back all the way to the Golden Age of /tg/.
stop this pathetic samegayging nonsense already, your art will never be relevant on this board
stay mad janny
>Haha, it's a joke, just a joke of course
>Unless people like it...? Haha no forget we said that haha
Wouldn't even be the first time they made a joke real.
Isn't the new version of it better, since it only refers to permanents, or do lands not count towards that effect in older rules?
Lands are permanents.
And, the new one is worse because it checks at upkeep rather than winning instantly.
Would some kind anon refresh my memories sbout AI art incident in... Bigby's Giants book, I think?
The book was in production before AI image concerns had really peaked, so a few artists thought they could take some AI-assisted shortcuts without anyone noticing, and the editors either didn't notice or didn't care. Fast-forward a few months, and people did notice, so Wizards issued a statement apologizing and that all future printings would have the AI-assisted art replaced.
Has anyone tried to use ChatGPT as a GM?
That sounds even lonelier than a Solo RPG, which is already one of thr loneliest activities known to man.
Do it with multiple players! I'm a perma-GM who would rather play but none of my players want to GM. I'd take an imperfect GM if it meant I got to fricking play.
Eh, most current LLMs are too obsequious to do a good job, and I think the text-adventure one that tried to rape you got taken down
No, but I did try AIDungeon a while back. The illusion kept breaking thanks to how little it could remember and reference. An inconsistent world is one of the most unnappealing sins a DM can commit, and it could only really look at the last ten or so lines when generating new material.
A few other GMs I know like to use it to generate rough skeletons of NPCs or locations but nothing more complex because it has a poor grasp of previously entered info. I don't use it myself though since making those bits myself is part of the fun.
>AI cant gain copyright of its work
So can i just print and sell them legally?
Work on your art
>Unavoidable
obvious fake, wotc would never encourage mtg players to cut loose and have fun with the card game
That's great and all, but what's it got to do with big demon tiddies.
most of the art on wizards was already just photobashed anyway, you can watch entire videos of the creators doing it, just grabbing images on google putting it together and slapping some paint on top in some places
I hope everyone in this thread including myself is hit by a bus tomorrow. Most of you are insane and the rest are insufferable c**ts.
Know what anon, fair enough. May both of us get hit by a bus tomorrow. Maybe we'll get isekai'd.
>You hate him because it's hurting the bottom line of your corporate overlords.
Do I?
I don't hate pathetic things. Pathetic means I feel sorry for them. You know? Pathos?
If you're dependent on 40k to make money, that's kind of pathetic. If you need to exploit copyright law, that means you are lacking in the creative qualities that are neccesary to be a creator. And that's sad.
From an investor's perspective this is good.
Less money to pay for all that artwork.
Tjats the reason why AI is like what it is. Most things you see are functions to replace humans in work or customer relation.
>Unavoidable
>Un-set made by AI
....Y'know, I'd be okay with this, as long as they don't bother correcting any gibberish rules it insists on adding to the cards/set
Work on your art.
I like AI, It gives me what I want and Kills corporations and greedy Black folk
Sure, why not? At this point I am sure they would let ChatGPT handle the text and balancing as well.
> copying rather than creating becomes the only viable profitable enterprise
This isn’t exactly true. For the most part this applies to writing and inventions but much less to art in general.
They are already doing this except it's lazy artists who let ai do the work for them and then just paint over it. Easy money. Shit product. One of the many reasons modern mtg art looks like piss
That's the official excuse, yeah. Honestly, Magic has become so low prestige and low paying that there's no reason not to streamline to the max and give them the sloppa they deserve.