Marketer. Photographer. Husband & dad. Lego, Minecraft, & Preds hockey fan. Movie buff, but pls #NoSpoilers!

Also @pwnicholson@mastodon.online Also @pwnicholson@pixelfed.social Also @pwnicholson.bsky.social Used to be @pwnicholson on IG, FB, TW, etc

  • 0 Posts
  • 109 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle



  • As a photographer and the spouse of a writer, they are making massive profits off of a product that wouldn’t exist if they didn’t train it. By the very way the technology works, there’s a little bit of our work scattered in everything they do. If I included a sample of a piece of music in a song I recorded, or included a copyrighted painting in the background if a movie I was making, is would have to get a license. Why is this any different?

    They should have done something more like a commodity license as it exists in music:

    The composer of a song cannot prevent a new artist from recording a cover of their music if it has been previously released. The original composer is legally forced to grant them a license (hence “compulsory license”). But that license is at a pre-negotiated minimal rate. The new artist is free to try to negotiate a lower rate if the composer agrees. But the original composer can’t stop the new artist from recording a cover. And the new artist has to pay them for it.

    Unfettered access is granted and the composer gets their share. Win-win.




  • The ‘pirating’ news from a couple of months ago was Meta, specifically. But I’m sure Anthropic did some too.

    The issue I’ve always had wasn’t that they didn’t own a copy to read/reference. It’s that they’re effectively creating derivative works from that content, which they haven’t licensed for that use.

    According to my understanding of copyright law (IANAL but I took a few IP law classes on in college) every author whose work was fed into that beast could have an argument that they share copyright in the derivative work that comes out of it.