I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • Rentlar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The author of this opinion has a point, and that artist not getting ownership of works involving AI image generation is a consequence, but I like that it also discourages big studios from taking AI generated mishmash as a drop-in replacement for human produced artwork. If they used it some video generation program at this moment to replace strikers, there are grounds that the studios have no ownership of it.

    Anyways, I think copyright law should be fully torn down and rebuilt to reasonable levels, so AI may be a good catalyst to achieve this vision of mine.

    • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      As an author, I say cut the term waaay down. 12 years plus the option for a 12-year one-time renewal.

      Some will get screwed, but the entire populace will gain.

      • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d been thinking recently that cutting the copyright term down to 20 years would be reasonable. So while 12 years feels a bit low to me, the optional 12 year renewal (taking it to 24 years in total) works just fine. You have my vote.