@Snarky
The distinction I tried to make there, is that I simply should have control over what my artwork is used for, unless it infringes on your more basic rights.
To force you not to speak your mind about my artwork(etc. write a review), to force you not to learn yourself from my artwork, to force you not to look at my artwork once its publicly available are some of those instances.
Perhaps using my artwork for testing, purely for research or for some other strictly non-commercial purposes.
Of course public good is another principle that should play a role, meaning if using my work for training should in some obvious way elevate suffering and can't be easily replaced, that should beat my right to stop it, but not if all it does, is on a push of a button, produce something pretty.
I believe the degree* to which my artwork(my labour) contributed to the NN's weights being adjusted, rather than other artwork or photo is the fact that should entitle me to have a say in whether its used that way, even if it didn't produce artwork that would pass under current laws as obvious plagiarism. Its turning my labour into my own competition in a systematic and undeniable manner.
My guess is, the laws now might more or less reflect what is fair, considering the damage a person can make with creating artwork similar to someone else rather than a machine spewing tons of it, combined with the fact that a person creating artwork on their own shouldn't need to struggle riddled with uncertainty just to avoid copyright infringement, as opposed to a AI model where you have clear choice in what you include in a data set.
*And the fact that proportionally to that degree the unapproved use of my work has contributed to me loosing future work, while someone else gets richer of it, its just hard for me not to see that as a sort of insult to an injury.
The distinction I tried to make there, is that I simply should have control over what my artwork is used for, unless it infringes on your more basic rights.
To force you not to speak your mind about my artwork(etc. write a review), to force you not to learn yourself from my artwork, to force you not to look at my artwork once its publicly available are some of those instances.
Perhaps using my artwork for testing, purely for research or for some other strictly non-commercial purposes.
Of course public good is another principle that should play a role, meaning if using my work for training should in some obvious way elevate suffering and can't be easily replaced, that should beat my right to stop it, but not if all it does, is on a push of a button, produce something pretty.
I believe the degree* to which my artwork(my labour) contributed to the NN's weights being adjusted, rather than other artwork or photo is the fact that should entitle me to have a say in whether its used that way, even if it didn't produce artwork that would pass under current laws as obvious plagiarism. Its turning my labour into my own competition in a systematic and undeniable manner.
My guess is, the laws now might more or less reflect what is fair, considering the damage a person can make with creating artwork similar to someone else rather than a machine spewing tons of it, combined with the fact that a person creating artwork on their own shouldn't need to struggle riddled with uncertainty just to avoid copyright infringement, as opposed to a AI model where you have clear choice in what you include in a data set.
*And the fact that proportionally to that degree the unapproved use of my work has contributed to me loosing future work, while someone else gets richer of it, its just hard for me not to see that as a sort of insult to an injury.
But June 17. in theaters, when, how am I gonna see it aaaaaaa and what am I gonna do till then! 