Active member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 44
Counterfeit paintings are made to look like copies of an artist's work. AI generated images that are used in the sale of something aren't. You could make an argument if someone pretends a unique work was made by an artist that's passed away when it really wasn't, but that's fair game in my opinion. You say "no one is entitled to use others' works for profits without their express authorization." First of all, you don't own anything in this life. You're leasing everything from your body and mind to your home that you've paid off in full. Nothing is yours to keep forever. Second of all, artwork that's made physically by a person and that has been influenced by the art styles and techniques of predecessors are sold all the time. It's the people who are lazy and too dependent on the continued production of one style of art that complain when their art is counterfeited because they lack the ability to network, distribute supply, advertise their artwork on to global markets. Should the government also give artists free access to networks, advertisement, faster production methods, etc. so nobody else can monopolize the use of their own art too? How about they sell their art to a company who will do this for them? Then, they are no longer the sole proprietor of the art but are still compensated. As soon as your art is digitized, you no longer have sole proprietorship. Your film was recorded in the cinema and then that file was burned onto a CD to be sold in a third world country? You no longer have a say. Your design was reconstructed digitally by a pirate and then reproduced by a machine that was given instructions to mass produce an exact replica for sale elsewhere? You no longer have a say. It's nobody's fault but your own when you can't protect your own work. You should've had armed guards be stationed in the cinema and phones/cameras confiscated. Adapt, work harder, and let the billionaires steal and monopolize your effort. Hayao Miyazaki is a boomer who is too complacent by using one style of art. He can't adapt and if someone copies his art style for a feature length film then nobody should stop them. Copyright law is stupid and outdated. Artists need copyright law to protect their inability to continually make novel things. They are lazy, weak snowflakes who struggle to be the fittest. The people who are stealing ideas and art styles as you say are also lazy in their thinking but they're still putting in effort. Everyone who thought they could protect and continue making money off of digitally made or uploaded art even before AI was thing a thing is a complete fool. Miyazaki relinquished his rights whenever he started digitizing his work. Laws can't keep the internet in check.
To say you have the sole claim to intellectual property and are the rightful beneficiary of its sale is the one of the most naive things a person could say. It's one thing to have an artist's reputation tarnished by work that is similar or exactly the same in style but if the work is not proposed to have been made the the original artist and is still sold, I have no problem with that. There is no such thing as protecting your keep in this life.
Last edited:
