Submitted by vadhavaniyafaijan t3_119xj76 in singularity
qrayons t1_j9ouqi9 wrote
I feel like there's a fine line. In general, I recognize the creativity that goes not only into crafting the prompt, but also using artistic vision to adapt the prompt based on the outputs and select the best images. Not to mention the editing that can occur in the outputted images.
However, if there are absolutely zero restrictions on copyrighting AI generated art, then someone like Disney could write a program that generates millions of outputs of unique cartoon characters and they would all be copyrighted and then if someone recreated a similar character (by pure chance), that person would be violating Disney's copyright, and that doesn't feel right.
[deleted] t1_j9phf8s wrote
I think people are glossing over the editing part. Fixing the eyes, terrain, limbs, or modifying the colors counts as your property.
dasnihil t1_j9q43e6 wrote
monetizing and copyrighting art is where humanity went wrong and we'll fix it eventually by understanding art better.
rushmc1 t1_j9rjrvy wrote
Monetizing a lot of things that shouldn't be.
dasnihil t1_j9rnggq wrote
diamonds man.. fucking stone.
human enterprise is built on lies.
Ahaigh9877 t1_j9s4iwc wrote
As in, attaching value to something that's scarce? How do you stop people doing that?
dasnihil t1_j9s5ogi wrote
art is not scarce, stop trying to make it so. and the value i attach to it has nothing to do with money. it's a feeling.
turnip_burrito t1_j9s6v4x wrote
Art once was scarce in the past, but the problem is that we now have to adapt to a new reality where art is not scarce.
zero0n3 t1_j9slkze wrote
Art was never scarce. You’re just looking at specific mediums.
Mediums used to be scarce. Or I should say the mediums that can be stored and cataloged used to be scarce.
turnip_burrito t1_j9smktx wrote
Of course art was scarce. Now certain kinds of art are not, and some still are. All art requires time, energy, or mediums to produce and access. And new art of higher quality requires more time, energy, or materials. For some forms of art, these resources are plentiful, and for others these resources are still lacking.
Now the cost of all these things has fallen for various kinds of art. More paints, more paper, more instruments, more photographs, more people hours, more computing power, more broadcasting, more storage, etc. But if you want to see somebody perform (dance/sing for example) or paint in person, that is an example of art that scarce. Original physical art works are also scarce. As well as digital art made more to spec.
zero0n3 t1_j9sn6we wrote
No it doesn’t. You don’t get it.
Art was never scarce. Anyone and everyone makes art. Your 7 yr old telling you about his dream - art.
Art boils down to creative expression. The medium is what made it scarce in the past. No paper for that kid to draw on. No pen for the person wanting to write a story.
The only difference is there is now a medium that allows near instant transmission of that expression.
Definition btw:
> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
Hell, the person who designed your house created art.
turnip_burrito t1_j9snfcm wrote
>The medium is what made it scarce in the past.
>
>Art was never scarce.
Which is it?
And if I want to see someone perform in person, the access to see this is limited. The person only performs one time, and there are only so many seats. So this is an example of scarcity in art.
When I say art was or is scarce, I mean that there are forms of art that show scarcity. If you want to define all expression as art, then yeah there's no scarcity. But that's obviously not what most people mean by art.
zero0n3 t1_j9snlvx wrote
What don’t you get?
“Art” was always being created - we just don’t have a record of it. It was never scarce in the moment. It’s all around you.
What’s scarce is the medium people use to RECORD art.
It’s like my point keeps going right over your head.
turnip_burrito t1_j9so09d wrote
Your point is ridiculous. Okay, fine. Whatever. Art as a concept (*waves arms*) was never scarce. We'll go with your broad definition.
However, certain forms of art are absolutely scarce, have always been scarce, and now we're seeing the transition of the type of superficially impressive digital artwork from high scarcity to low scarcity.
Other kinds of art are still scarce: Handmade pots have a certain scarcity, performances, etc.
zero0n3 t1_j9so8ni wrote
Don’t argue with me argue with the dictionary.
Art is a fucking concept. Literally impossible without other concepts like “emotion” and “free will”.
Art isn’t just the painting storing a snapshot. It’s the moment itself. Experiencing it.
turnip_burrito t1_j9sohr2 wrote
I see now that you aren't addressing my point on scarcity and are just repeating that "all expression is art". Are you going to add anything new?
duboispourlhiver t1_j9sov5i wrote
You are talking about two different things, I think you are both right.
turnip_burrito t1_j9sp64j wrote
It's because the word "art" has several definitions used by different groups of people. It's not a word with one definition in reality.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uz5sb wrote
At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.
Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5jro wrote
You're clearly missing the point.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uyzk1 wrote
Humans have always, and will always have both emotion and free will. At no point in history has art ever been scarce on a global scale. The only societies art has EVER even been suppressed in, were dictatorships, where someone specifically had a problem with art and killed people for making it. But even then, there's plenty of art from those places.
Not sure who told you art was scarce at some point, but they're wrong, and you're wrong. Hell we have found art from our non-human ancestors. You're clearly completely out of your element, and talking out of your ass here. You'd be wise to quit digging.
zero0n3 t1_j9vo41k wrote
I wasn’t the one saying art was scarce. I’m the one saying it was abundant! It’s the medium we record it on that has changed over time. The concept of art really hasn’t.
And even then it wasn’t scarce. Just look at the pyramids. Art everywhere from the writing to the presentation of mummies etc.
The emotion and free will piece was more conceptual. Like A species that doesn’t have emotions or free will wouldn’t be able to create or understand art at any level.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uzcdc wrote
Wrong. Just because you do not have a whole bunch of clay pots doesn't mean art was scarce. Time exists dude, it makes objects disappear and get buried if they're not maintained.
It appears you've confused the word 'scarce' with something else. Scarce by definition means there was not enough to meet the needs of the population. Or, demand was higher than something's availability.
Art has never had that problem. Art has been suppressed at various points throughout history, but it was still there, and meeting the public demand for it.
English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5wje wrote
Read the rest of the discussion. "Art" has several different definitions, and we were using two of those different definitions. This led to disagreement.
>English better, or stop bickering with people when you can't even write coherently.
Was that necessary? I see now that you're either a troll, or if not, a strange person. My written English is fine, and I'm sorry if you have trouble reading it.
dasnihil t1_j9sdrdu wrote
you're thinking of pretty paintings that wow you, I'm glad I'm getting desensitized to those. I've lived 30 something years with fixed ideas of what art is, I'm loving this new paradigm shift.
MrSickRanchezz t1_j9uyg0e wrote
No it wasn't. Art has existed in every human ever. What you lack is evidence of said art, but that's no evidence of anything.
turnip_burrito t1_j9v5eum wrote
You have a particular definition of art that gives you this view. There are other definitions of art that will provide a different view.
KyleG t1_j9w6130 wrote
Actually independent creation doesn't violate copyright. That's a patent doctrine, which covers practical inventions, not creative expression.
[deleted] t1_j9ovy3l wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments