• duhlieluh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    i think that should be a given but it does not solve peoples work being taken and mutilated by an algorithm.

    certainly takes incentive out of it for someone that wants to use it for a production, but im sure there are ways they would get around it.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      You’re right that it’s not a complete solution. Offhand, it seems like this won’t help graphic designers that make advertising graphics if the advertiser doesn’t really care about copyright protection - or basically anything that is expected to have a short lifespan (who cares if an ad campaign that runs for a week is copyrighted?).

      Are those jobs worth fighting over? There are probably a lot more graphic artists making a living producing bilboards and web ads &etc than there are making a living selling their own art, but are those jobs something that society at large should make an effort to protect?

      I do think that manipulating incentives is the most effective strategy. A high-budget film without copyright is not profitable, and therefore anything that leads to gaps in copyright protection is unlikely to be adopted by the film industry. This removes all of the potential burden of government regulation, oversight, auditing, labor union rules, legal battles, etc… it just obviates all that because it kills the profitability of using generative AI to replace people.