I'm sympathetic to artists that want to exclude their works from giant training datasets that primarily end up benefiting the big players in AI without giving anything back. In a way, the first big digital data heist on mankind was executed by social media. Founders of various social media sites became extremely rich thanks to regular people's content being posted and shared (often illegally), without giving anything back to creators.
Will the rise of AI reduce opportunities for creatives? Almost certainly, but unlike essentially all other industries, it won't be wiped out by the rise of automation because humans won't stop liking things that are created by humans. As in music, there will be a shift to performance where customers / clients are engaged in the creative process. In many ways, it will be a return to something like the golden age of portraiture as people pay for engagement.
There are huge opportunities for creatives in the age of AI to create new art forms, created in new ways for new kinds of consumer. Creatives can choose to engage with that or to throw sabots. As London's liverymen show, guilds cannot stop the tide, the opportunity is to become something new that floats on the rising waters.
> That appreciation also leads to the creative industries being subsidised essentially everywhere in a way that is likely to increase over time rather than decreasing.
Not only had it been decreasing for some time now, people are excited about making good-enough music in AI generators. I'm even surprised by your use of "subsidised" rather then "paid for".
We had a chance for the sponsors during the best times of Patreon. Now it's just going to get worse.
Damn, this phrase is gold.
if it weren't from guilds all towers and bridges would have collapsed and Maritime trade world never have happened.
then, many centuries later, and land owner elite capture, the guilds become in England just an extension of the peerage system and then it becomes what that phrase above describes. btw most medical labour organizations today work like that protectionism scheme and nobody complain much.
This kind of content can absolutely be replaced by automation and IMO most people will be more than happy with generated content.
1. Create a new type of copyright called "training right".
2. This "training right" also applies to names.
3. This "training right" also applies to all usage with AI, even if it doesn't involve training (e.g. as an input to the AI software, such as Img2Img).
4. All AI-generated materials to be captioned as such, and all their activities catalogued and logged.
5. Public domain is no longer public domain (public domain has no "training rights" by default), and freely licensed media is no longer freely licensed (freely licensed media has no "training rights" by default) because "it would not have been possible to foresee its use in a dataset to train an AI model".
In music, fine arts, video games, photography there are tons of extremely successful European content producers. Cinema/TV are also quite big too (in no small part thanks to EU legislation incentivising it, but it's top notch quality so who cares, win-win-win).
Not that we should enable that. Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi and Bach are cool, but who should be making money now from their IP? I'd say nobody, it should already be part of CC IMHO.
no surprise here, you don't seem the type to appreciate art, in any form.
I guess you don't even watch Netflix...
> very mediocre European domestic content industry
Or maybe this is an attempt by artists to protect their works from being exploited by big corporations in exchange for nothing. Which is fine to me, even if their work really were mediocre, nobody can deprive authors of their rights.
It will be the same story as with Spotify, they will be happy to license it for a bit company for pennies which then again will license it upstream for a big amount
That's entirely on you. There are some big names in the (european) comic book industry.
Since this is a private organization the best guess is none
> People: I don't want my stuff to be used to train models.
> Companies: To use our service you grant us perpetual license to use your stuff in whatever way we want, and also the right to sublicense so we can sell your stuff to others while granting them the same rights.
> People: Sure, here you go! Here's my art/code/voice/face/photos/videos/telemetry!
> Companies: [use data according to the license that was granted to them]
> People: pikachu_face.jpg
So enforcing what the manifesto wants to enforce wouldn't change much, if anything at all.
Disclaimer: I have pirated others' stuff (e.g. anime, manga, novels, music, I have shared memes with others (that's distribution), etc), so I can't complain when others pirate my stuff without being a hypocrite. The most I can do myself is call them out for profiting off it.
A broad license like that should not be obtainable by merely having the user click a checkbox.
Companies already are doing what they say they are doing, even if it's unenforceable. The profit from doing so is more than the liabilities from any lawsuit might be receiving.
History shows that creating more legalese text won't add any more teeth. A specific example is how 90% of websites[1] are in violation[2] of the GDPR already.
The manifesto raises a good point about data not protected by copyright; but one can argue that models created from copyrighted content, what most artists I see are complaining about, are already in violation of copyright due to being derivative works (IANAL), yet already-existing copyright laws aren't helping[3].
So they way I understand this manifesto is, they are not adding anything new for copyrighted works (AFAIK, IANAL), but they are taking away rights from public domain works (let's see how that plays out with Disney, for example).
Hopefully this additional context clarifies where I'm coming from.
[1]: I'm making up that number but I'm probably lowballing it anyway.
[2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev
[3]: But I bet if someone made a model from TV shows, now suddenly the already-existing copyright law would magically work for those specific cases. So basically, these randos without power are making a law that will only be enforced by those with power.
Either that, or we stop complaining and start acting.
Maybe it's that we're just the same as these EGAIR people?
DIN standard and regulatory capture soon.
This is morally right, it doesn't matter what will happen in the material world. We will always have God and spirituality to comfort us.
That because Europe has always been the front runner when it's about advancing the human species and where the best ideas, sooner or later, always win.
People should complain much more about doctors’ guilds. There are limits on how many doctors can be trained in the US and the U.K. largely as a result of lobbying by doctors’ guilds. They’re called professional associations these days but let’s not pretend they confine themselves to enforcing professional standards.
my point is that you can't throw the whole history of guilds under the bus just because the term was stolen by shady corporativism and peerage.
uhhh, the popular "I don't know what I'm saying, but I'm sure I'm right, because it's me saying it"
But even if it was true, most of the violations of traffic laws go unpunished, for obvious reasons, does it mean traffic laws are useless?
> [2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev
did you report it?
I'm usually careful with wording since not everyone tries to read in good faith, but I was probably too tired at the time to notice.
I apologize for any offense that my comment might have caused.
Nobody is really worried if the website for Go packages doesn't fully respect GDPR, except maybe Go it's a Google product, but the best they can infer it's the demographics of Go developers, which they probably already know.
What is important is that the data collectors can be held responsible for the infringements.
Same objective I imagine for EIGAR (I know some of the founders), it is not to stop generative art using AI, but to stop pretending that massive data scraping of copyrighted material is fair use when Disney or Amazon or Netflix or any other tech mogul profits from them.
Hollywood writers and the actors' guild have already gone on strike over this, this is nothing new or unexpected, it was simply waiting to happen, it's Newton's third law of motion applied to humans.
I wouldn't call the idea of big tech having even more influence on our culture and entertainment progress though. Sounds horrible to me.
that's the wrong question, it is like asking "how many peasants are there nowadays"?
of course there are many more people that do not need to plow the fields all day to provide for their 11 children and that can entertain themselves with arts, that's not the point.
the point is that mass manufacturing easily reproducible standardized artifacts becomes industrial production, which has nothing to do with art.