"How to identify original works by artists? How to attribute works generated by AI intermediaries? How to remunerate authors whose works have been used? How to manage opt-outs for artists who refuse their content to be used by AI? These are the questions that require a review of the copyright directive in light of generative AI,” says Mireille Clapot, the Member of Parliament leading on the opinion and President of France’s National Assembly’s High Commission for Digital and Posts (CNSP).
Although Clapot and her colleagues welcome the AI Act, they believe the Copyright Directive will have to be amended because of the recent technological developments in AI.
Don’t you think it’s rather strange for an artist, if people can use their art how ever they want during the artist lifetime?
Would be a great incentive to make new art then, wouldn’t it?
It might seem strange to you only because you aren’t used to it. However, copyright is a fairly new concept, and most of human history happened without it.
What do you mean? Artist have often a personal and intimate connection to their art and might be upset if someone uses it in a context they might dislike. For example a liberal artist art is used in a racist propaganda. Or a big corporation just used your favorite painting in a commercial for something you completely disagree with. I think artist should be able to hold the rights for their art as long as they are alive.
And we had no democracy, women had little rights a lot of people were some kind of slaves (and still are). Took humanity some time to come up with some very important concepts.
Why? It’s how patents always have worked. And even with a maximum of 20 years for patents they are more often used to stifle innovation rather than encourage it.
Copyright and patents should start at 5 years, and then be possible to extend 5 years at a time up to 20 years if the company owning the copyright or patent can prove it’s still in active use and not only used to prevent others from moving forward.
Art is not the same as technology. Artist have a rather personal and intimate connection to their creation, while at the same time the usability of art is not crucial for advancement of society, like it is with technology. Therefore it seems fair to me that an artist has the right to stop his art from being used in context he does not like. For example a liberal artist work used for advancement of racist propaganda.
Art is culture, culture is imperative for the growth of a society.
There is a difference between technology and art. Me having rights for my art does not really hinder anyone else from creating art, at least not how a patent prevents a technology being used.
Once your art is in the wild and enjoyed by society, it belongs to everyone. Hoarding art ownership is how you get stupid shit like Happy Birthday being copyrighted.
Look at Internet culture, like for example Steamed Hams, it spawned a wave of creative works and interpretations, and these works unite people across the globe with a shared commonality. Something technically not legal in many places, but luckily Disney/Fox haven’t gone and cracked down on it.
We need to protect the best interests of society as a whole, not rights holders.
If you are not engaging with my main argument: personal and intimate relationship between art and artist, I don’t really see a point in conversation. And I think that an individual does also have right to be protected from society.
I don’t value your main argument.
I think the needs of the many outweigh the feelings of the artist.
It’s the next level of the death of the author. The authors connection to the work is irrelevant compare to the readers.
Give the artist a reasonable time frame to earn some money off their work if they want and let it go free.
Fair, than we fundamentally disagree on nature and value of art and even the role of society and individuals. That would be a rather long discussion to have.
Not sure how that is related to my argument, but even less sure why artists seem to be the only people who don’t deserve to own the product of their work. But yeah, sounds nice and poetic.
But that already happens all the time. Vedy often the rights end up in the hands of some corporation and the author gets to have ~zero say in how it’s used.
Doesn’t seem to have been a particularly big issue.
But the author has to sell his rights for this first, which he should be able to decide for himself.