[nobody_r_knows]

my question to your anecdotal: who cares? not being fecicious, but who cares if someone reproduced your stuff and millions of people see your stuff? is the money that you want? is it the fame? because fame you will get, maybe not money... but couldn't there be another way?

[swatcoder]

People have values that go beyond wealth and fame. Some people care about things like personal agency, respect and deference, etc.

If someone were on vacation and came home to learn that their neighbor had allowed some friends stay in the empty house, we would often expect some kind of outrage regardless of whether there had been specific damage or wear to the home.

Culturally, people have deeply set ideas about what's theirs, and feel like they deserve some say over how their things are used and by whom. Even those that are very generous and want their things be widely shared usually want to have have some voice in making that come to be.

[visarga]

If I were a creative I would avoid seeing any work I am not legally allowed to get inspired by, why install furniture into my brain I can't sit on? I see this kind of IP protection as poisoned grounds, can't do anything on top of it.

[oxag3n]

To clarify my question - I do not want anything I create to be fed into their training data. That photo is just an example that I caught and it became personal. But in general I don't want anymore to open source my code, write articles and put any effort into improving training data set.

[Forgeties79]

As a professional cinematographer/photographer I am incredibly uncomfortable with people using my art without my permission for unknown ends. Doubly so when it’s venture backed private companies stealing from millions of people like me as they make vague promises about the capabilities of their software trained on my work. It doesn’t take much to understand why that makes me uncomfortable and why I feel I am entitled to saying “no.” Legally I am entitled to that in so many cases, yet for some reason Altman et al get to skip that hurdle. Why?

How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to.

At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.

[CamperBob2]

The day after I first heard about the Internet, back in 1990-whatever, it occurred to me that I probably shouldn't upload anything to the Internet that I didn't want to see on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper.

Apart from the 'newspaper' anachronism, that's pretty much still my take.

Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.

[Forgeties79]

> Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.

You were fine until this bit.

[onraglanroad]

They're still fine because they're right.

You got to play the copyright game when the big corps were on your side.

Now they're on the other side. Deal with it and get over it.

[Forgeties79]

You are not entitled to my art. Comparing that to copyright abuse by large corporations is ridiculous.

[CamperBob2]

I get access to inspiration from everybody's art, and so do you. Seems like a good deal to me.

Meanwhile, the next generation of great artists is already at work down the street from you. Some kids you've never heard of, playing around in a basement or garage you've probably driven past a hundred times. They're learning to make the most of the tools at hand, just like the old masters did. Except the tools at hand this time are little short of godlike.

It's an exciting time. If you wanted things to stay the same, you shouldn't have gone into technology or art.

[smileson2]

You should be proud your work will now be distilled enterally and an aspect of your work will forever influence the world

[Forgeties79]

I’m not

[vintermann]

> How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product?

That would be misrepresentation. Even Stallman isn't OK with that. You can take one of his opinion pieces and publish it as your own. Or you can attach his name to it.

However, if you're editing it and releasing it under his name, clearly you're simply lying, and nobody is OK with that. People have the right to be recognized as authors of things they did author (if they so desire) and they have a right to NOT be associated with things they didn't.

> At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer.

The second part is the entirety of the problem. If I'm "exploited" in a way where I can't even notice it, and I'm not worse off for it, how is it even exploitation? But people amassing great power is a problem no matter if they do it with "legitimate" means or not.

[Forgeties79]

If somebody is stealing from your bank account every week and you just don’t notice it, are you not being stolen from? Has nobody stolen your credit card and used it until the moment you notice the charges. I don’t really think we can go “if a tree fall in the forest and nobody is around to hear it…” about this.

Stallman has his opinions on software, I have my opinions on my visual work. I don’t get really how that applies here or why that settles this matter.

[vintermann]

If someone steals from my bank account I certainly CAN notice it even if I don't immediately, and I'm certainly worse off.

That's such a bad straw man I wonder if you're really supporting the position you claim to be supporting. Maybe you're just trying to give it a bad name.

Your opinion isn't on visual work, but visual property. You don't demand to be paid for your work - your labor. Rather you traded that for the dream of being paid rent on a capital object, in perpetuity (or close enough). Artists lost to the power-mongers when we bit at that bait.

[Forgeties79]

If you think that’s a bad example so be it but I’m not attempting to make a strawman or give anything a bad name.

I don’t really know where all the hostility came from in this conversation but I think it’s best if we move on.

[netule]

Suddenly, copyright doesn't matter anymore when it's no longer useful to the narrative.

[ragequittah]

Copyright has overstepped its initial purpose by leaps and bounds because corporations make the law. If you're not cynical about how Copyright currently works you probably haven't been paying attention. And it doesn't take much to go from cynical to nihilist in this case.

[netule]

There's definitely a case of miscommunication at play if you didn't read cynicism into my original post. I broadly agree with you, but I'll leave it at that to prevent further fruitless arguing about specifics.

[BoorishBears]

OpenAI does care about copyright, thankfully China does not: https://imgur.com/a/RKxYIyi

(to clarify, OpenAI stops refining the image if a classifier detects your image as potentially violating certain copyrights. Although the gulf in resolution is not caused by that.)

[CamperBob2]

(Shrug) This is more important. Sorry.

[whywhywhywhy]

The people building the tech are extremely fussy about their work being cited and extremely protective of their models files so they themselves have massive issues with their work being used or replicated non-consensually.

[illwrks]

The issue is ownership, not promotion or visibility.

[jibal]

facetious

[I won't bother responding to the rest of your appalling comment]