This interesting video about AI art, just came out: https://youtu.be/nIRbN52PA0o
I already knew, most of what it was talking about, but found it interesting, that no company, developing music generating AI, was ever brave enough to use copyrighted music, for training. They all seen to have no problem, doing it with images.
It’s not surprising, I’ve already expected it to be the case. It just amazes me, how they find a way to incorporate the “music is worth money, images are not” bias into everything.
It’s more so a battle of lawyers, than artists at this point - or perhaps it always has been. With the corporations, using the garbage flat art and “nothing music*” for their interests and letting stupid and underpaid artists, eat the (usually deserved) backlash for it.
*nothing music/corporate music is a whole other chapter itself, if anyone wants to find out more about that, this is a good start: https://youtu.be/AIxY_Y9TGWI
@prologic@twtxt.net Yeah, I don’t think there even is an equivalent for other artists, you’d have to get your own team of lawyers with powerful connections. Good luck doing that with (in comparison) next to no income.
What I also find funny, is how music streaming services are a normal thing, most people use theses days. You couldn’t sell people a subscription, to look at all the images. In some cases, you’re even expected to pay, for the privilege of people seeing your art. cough cough Facebook pages cough cough
@prologic@twtxt.net I understand people falling for “free” software, especially if it’s something you’re almost never using, but subscription services still confuse me.
How can someone be unwilling, to pay for a thing once, but happy to lower their monthly income for the foreseeable future, for it?
@thecanine@twtxt.net Bet there’s some interesting psychology at play there
@thecanine@twtxt.net thanks for that video on nothing music!
@prologic@twtxt.net I don’t think banning it, is the right solution, as it can be quite helpful, when used the right way. I just think the works produced, should never be able to get copyrighted or monetized in similar ways. The double standard between music and images should also be addressed and either every artist gets fair compensation, or none of them do.
Sites should also decide, if they want to be an image board, or a portfolio site for artists and approach the situation accordingly, rather than trying to play both sides and failing.
Lastly, the situation should be used, to bring awareness to user agreements and the things companies put in there. Many of them already include, giving the company the right to use your work (be it code or art) to train some proprietary AI (GitHub, everything Adobe, DeviantArt…).
This is where it comes full circle, back to the subscription based apps. They change their agreements all the time and always add these things, that let them monetize your data, so they get you to be the product, like the “free” ones, but they get to charge you for it too.