YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.
www.youtube.com
No copyright infringement intended. | Watch Money, my new Nebula Original series, when you join CuriosityStream for only $2.99/month: https://curiositystream...

So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it change anything?”

Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren’t public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

  • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    Absolutely, which goes to show we probably need tougher copyright laws. Copyright laws that aren’t transferrable like creators’ rights. Right now people are trying to weaken copyright law altogether. I had someone in another conversation say that copyright laws should be thrown away entirely so we should just essentially treat them like they aren’t there.

    That said copyright laws also help those who can’t afford lawyers. I’ve seen indie game developers threaten the copyright of a studio to get paid. Saying that the copyright was transferred on payment, which was in the contract. The threat alone got them paid because the larger studio knew that if pressed, this would be an open-and-shut case.

    • Nix@merv.newsEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Copyright helps people who can’t afford lawyers? What? If they can’t afford the lawyers then they’re essentially bluffing and hoping the company doesnt want to risk a lawsuit. If the company decided to call the bluff then the person who can’t afford the lawyers not better pray the lawsuit covers their lawyer fees or they will be in a ton of debt.

      Copyright protects corporations and people who are rich enough to afford lawsuits.

      We dont need more copyright, we need more tools to find the original source of art (reverse image search type tools) and tools/culture that make it easier for artists to get paid and supported by fans

      • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        You don’t need a lawyer to take someone to court. Also, a lot of states have small claims courts which don’t allow lawyers. I do agree that it’s not currently proportional but if you watched the video, the UK is starting a way to solve this with smaller court systems that can be used to fight false copyright DMCAs and take on smaller cases. The US has small claims court which honestly should probably be simply capped a lot higher than it is.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The science industry is filled with patents and the inability to commercially reproduce works. The fundamental difference is how art is paid for as a product and science is licensed under patents to companies. Would you rather have a system where you could draw with pink but you need to pay the pink patent license holder?

        Also, I am saying stronger copyright laws for the humans creating the works. I’d argue extremely strong copyrights would be those which do not allow a corporation to actively hold copyright but instead licenses to redistribute from individuals.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            The core of my argument is that art is a product, and science is funded through the ability to market it. Ideas aren’t patentable but science is not just “ideas”. Science doesn’t mean anything unless you apply it. Applied Science is implementations that are patentable. It’s why concepts like game mechanics are patentable.

            Art fundamentally makes money differently than science does. This is why things like scientists freely offer papers describing studies and research while making money off of implementations of that research. In digital art, colors are free. The issue is then the monitors and display of that color change depending on implementation. That implementation isn’t free. Color systems in digital art are the like the research side of science where the implementation of it is a copyrighted artwork. The applied art created a product just like the science side. They both work the same.