Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art

thehatfox@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 23 points –
Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art
arstechnica.com
42

You are viewing a single comment

There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.

It destroys the open source/hobbyist sector. The only AIs that would be available for artists to use would be corporate-controlled, paywalled, and filtered. That's a pretty huge downside.

That’s not my problem

Art is not generated by machines. Nothing of value is lost.

Ah, so you meant "there's not a single downside to me."

Nothing of value is lost. Generative AI does not create anything new.

It’s exclusively a benefit to artists

Nothing of value to you is lost. We already know you don't care about other people, no need to keep repeating that.

AI does not generate anything of value

I care about artists and the protection of their work. Not the AI models or their creators.

There are artists who use AI tools as part of their workflow. You don't care about them.

And they can allow their art to be used to train AI. It just shouldn’t come at the expense of everyone else who wants to do things the traditional way.

Why should my work be open for anyone to use to train AI? I don’t care if it’s a hobbyist or an open model or google. I don’t want them using my work for training their models. Artists currently have rights over their work being used commercially, and I expect AI arguments to go that way as well. If it is to be used then it must be with the permission of the creator and a licensing contract written out. Art can be shared license free or AI permissive licenses, but would not be required to be.