[data-ottawa]

That is a huge oversimplification.

In the tattoo case, tattooing pikachu on a person does not harm Nintendo’s business, but copying another tattoo artist’s work or style directly takes their business. Tattoo art is an industry where your art style largely defines your career.

I can see the argument LLMs are transformative, but when you set up specific evaluation of copying a company/artist and then advertise that you clone that specific studio’s work, that’s harming them and in my opinion crossing a line.

This isn’t an individual vs corporation thing, (though people are very selfish).

There’s so much more here than just corporate vs individual. There’s the sheer scale of it, the enforcement double standards, questions of consent, and taking advantage of the commons (artists public work) etc. To characterize it as people not liking business is plain wrong.

[esalman]

Very well put. It boggles my mind that some people cannot separate individual from corporations. As if their mind are not able to comprehend how corporations can cause harm at scale.

[halJordan]

Certainly we need to "right-size" our outrage. But especially with the tattoo artist side, it skews into a sort of weird nimby-ism, where tattoo artists have claimed some mantle where the ip of a Nintendo which spent multiple salaries over six months perfecting a pokemon is totally worthless and trash, while the ip of some dime-a-dozen flash art someone banged out over a weekend is invaluable.