• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I’m not sure pissing off Miyazaki is a great move. He’s an old Japanese man who is famously so bitter that when he chain smokes he gives the cigarettes cancer, communicates largely in contemplative one-liners, and is known to own precisely one sword. And he has a beard. We’ve all seen this movie; we know how that kind of thing ends.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Style cannot be copyrighted.

    And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yes, but I would have to buy the blu-rays as an artist, if I wanted to study them, meanwhile these corporations can get away with paying nothing.

    • MashedTech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not style. But they had to train that AI on ghibli stuff. So… Did they have the right to do that?

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      This is already a copyright apocalypse though isn’t it? If there is nothing wrong with this then where is the line? Is it okay for Disney to make a movie using an AI trained on some poor sap on Deviant Art’s work? This feels like copyright laundering. I fail to see how we aren’t just handing the keys of human creativity to only those with the ability to afford a server farm and teams of lawyers.

    • mspencer712@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think you’re right about style. As a software developer myself, I keep thinking back to early commercial / business software terms that listed all of the exhaustive ways you could not add their work to any “information retrieval system.” And I think, ultimately, computers cannot process style. They can process something, and style feels like the closest thing our brains can come up with.

      This feels trite at first, but computers process data. They don’t have a sense of style. They don’t have independent thought, even if you call it a “<think> tag”. Any work product created by a computer from copyrighted information is a derivative work, in the same way a machine-translated version of a popular fiction book is.

      This act of mass corporate disobedience, putting distillate made from our collective human works behind a paywall needs to be punished.

      . . .

      But it won’t be. That bugs me to no end.

      (I feel like my tone became a bit odd, so if it felt like the I was yelling at the poster I replied to, I apologize. The topic bugs me, but what you said is true and you’re also correct.)