• MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not to support Disney or IP/copyright laws here, but that’s not really how that works. A musician can choose to not be on Spotify but be on Apple Music. A movie can be licensed to Netflix and not Hulu. A writer can publish in one paper and refuse to work with another. I think for how these things currently work, that is an important right that holders can claim. If I’m an artist and I want to make an AI generator from just my art, that should not give other companies license to use my are to train their AI.

    • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Oh, absolutely. I’m just saying that now that it’s out there, it’s going to be on the others whether they like it or not. And they’d have a leg to stand on if they were against AI. But they’re not. They’re working with AI.

      I really do get what you’re saying, but what people need to realise about AI is, it doesn’t care about rights. AI is trained off of thousands if not millions of works of art, mostly without permission, let alone compensation. This would be true of Disney IPs even if they weren’t working with AI. But since they are, since they’ve opened that door, it removes the moral concern the rest of us have, coming from the point of view of the artists who were never given a choice, let alone a cheque. We can’t feel sorry for Disney having other AI companies use their characters when it’s used characters from independent artists without even asking.