• Let’s say I write a book.

    If I don’t want people copying it, people shouldn’t be copying it. I don’t care if it’s been 500 years. It’s my book.

    This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.

    Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can’t protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn’t want it stolen, I don’t give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else’s creation without consent. It isn’t holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.

    when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      First of all, copying or modifying somebody else’s work without their permission isn’t theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I’m using your car, you can’t use it, because I’m doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.

      Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can’t afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they’ve been granted).

      This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.

      You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn’t, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they’re a liar. When you put somebody’s work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.

      when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

      You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can’t own information, copying it is not stealing.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      What is really novel in art is very hard to define. Art is based on artists inspiring each other, reacting to each other, borrowing from each other, evolving other artists’s ideas, actualizing and restructuring ideas. That’s why history of art is so fun and interesting.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Must suck being Shakespear for sure. Not even dreams are original though, they’re influenced by what you see in reality and by mental structures common to all people - motives in dreams repeat across nations and ages. You can be authentic, but it’s arguablx impossible to be absolutely original. Do your art for yourself and others who appreciate it, but don’t gatekeep ideas.

            • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Are you sure you have a right to be making this argument? Lots of corporations and individuals have already argued in favor of longer copyright duration.

                • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Just looking for a bit of intellectual rigor is all :)

                  You’re familiar with the realm of fan fiction, I assume? What’s your stance on their right to write?

                  • Nice question.

                    I believe if they do anything beyond creating something privately, they should respect the wishes of the creator of the realm.

                    Main thing I am thinking about is characters. In my own story world I am ok with others making thoughtful stories that don’t mess with my characters and some world aspects. I basically dont want to make my own unique character i am attached to just for someone else to take over that character and change who they are without my consent. The worst example I’ve come across is in My Little Pony I once had an ai pony keep saying how princess luna was tragically dead; which was horrifying to me and I know was not in the bright happy my little pony series. I researched a bit and found it was from a fanfic that had gained prominence and was influencing the ai. My Little Pony is not a tragic nor depressing show and that totally clashed with it. When I share a story I like of characters I like, I don’t want a depressed person to, thru fanfic, make history remember that character as like a drug addict or something horrific that I never said and essentially overwrite my own creation how they want and I don’t.

                    So for fanfic I think authors should be open to agreeing with the fics of fans and fics can achieve canonicalness or at least recognition that way, but with a hard line preventing nonaccepted fanfics from actual publicity including inclusion in ai training data. Fanfics should be nowhere they are competing with the creation of the author or misleading fans in to thinking they are cannon. Yes i have no idea how to spell canon and not looking it up lol. Ultimately it should be up to the creator of the realm what they would like fans to do with it and fans should respect that.

                    just my opinion and perspective. what do you think?