• angrystego@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours 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
        ·
        9 hours 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
            ·
            8 hours 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?

              • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Interesting. I hope you don’t mind me distilling that into a few bullet points.

                • you don’t like anyone opening your creation up to interpretation.

                If Da Vinci felt that the Mona Lisa was a happy painting, would he have a right to stop others from finding her fascinating because her expression is somewhat ambiguous?

                If that’s a bit too Minority Report, what about writing about her being sad, like a lot of journalists and critics have?

                What about when they earn income by writing about it?

                • You don’t think derivative works should compete with the original

                Fifty Shades of Grey was born on Twilight fan fiction forums. Erika Mitchell/E.L. James originally used the names Edward and Bella before editing and publishing work was done. There’s a lot of reader overlap—should she be allowed to earn money on this work without Stephanie Meyers’s consent?

                This also offers a second example of reinterpreting characters. What right does she have to change Edward from a protective to an openly exploitative individual? Is it okay because she changed the names?

                A quote:

                I am ok with others making thoughtful stories that don’t mess with my characters and some world aspects

                If you believe you should have rights in perpetuity to this work and protection from ideas that damage your work’s image, what happens when someone purchases those rights from you, like how musical artists sell the rights to their musical catalogs?

                Do those rights still last in perpetuity?

                May the individual of corporation who purchased those rights interpret and rule out damaging ideas as they see fit? May they rule out things previously seen as acceptable use by the creator?

                If you don’t approve of sales of rights, what about inheritance by estate? What about their rights to further interpretation?

                Another quote:

                I often independently come to conclusions other logical people may also come to. I wouldn’t know whether they have tho because I forge my own path.

                If you independently dream up a scientist who creates a humanoid being out of various body parts, brings it to life, and is then horrified by its appearance and the responsibilities he has toward it, doesn’t Mary Shelley still have the rights to the idea? Can’t she shoot down your right to publish, or your right to recognition? What would be your method of proving it was an independent idea?

                Does it matter? Should you receive praise for an idea you had that someone else has previously had (200+ years ago!)?

                Along the same vein, my use of a smiley face last comment was clearly derivative and meant to imitate you in this moment, but I’m much older than you, and I wrote that way far earlier than you ever did, so can you still claim it was an imitation of your writing style?

                Are you familiar with the Library of Babel as a story? As a concept? An author was inspired by Borges and made a website in 2015 that generates random combinations of letters and punctuation on command. You can “search” through the library and it will find places where the algorithm generates, at random and without intention, exactly what you wrote. People can bookmark their best finds. You can find the first page of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone here.

                Now, if JK Rowling said she no longer wished for her works to be published, may we use this website to generate her works anew?

                And in that vein, what rights would she have to withhold the material? I’m sure she does not like me because I’m not a TERF. But I enjoyed reading the books anyway. She has created a cultural keepsake. What right do we have to continue to enjoy her works despite her? For our children to imagine new adventures?

                • You actually do write fanfiction, and use AI to generate content in the style of the original work

                That’s just amusing. No notes.

                • I think the da vinci stuff is a different discussion entirely as it has to do with comments about art and not someone publishing someone else’s work for profit without consent while doing whatever they see fit to it. And generally that bullet seems slightly different from what I typed as my topic was theft of an artwork; not interpretation variation of viewers.

                  I like the 50 shades of grey example and approve of her changing it to be it’s own thing rather than either lose the effort put in to the fanfic or try to state it as twilight cannon without consent. Everything stated in that example feels good to me without triggering my immorality sensors.

                  Sale of rights is nothing I have comments on at this current time.

                  The babel program is an exotic ‘independently coming to something’.

                  I personally don’t write fan fiction at all and it is easy to distinguish my written fiction from things ai’s generate (at least with what ai is at this current time).

                  I believe the key topic you hit is ‘independently coming to things’ and that that should be encouraged and is moral while using expired copyright law to take someone else’s work without their consent is immoral. I do not profess to yet have an ideal system for this in mind; I would focus here though as it has potential to replace the immoral parts of the system with moral parts. So yes independently coming to something actually should receive positive feedback in comparison to purposely copying something the creator does not want copied.

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

                    I don’t think you can separate art and interpretation and critique, but they are often done by different parties. You don’t have to have an opinion on everything. Fair enough. I thought your opinion was that you opposed the misrepresentation of what a piece of art was about, e.g. My Little Pony is about x not y. I merely wanted to know the nature and extent of that opinion.

                    I agree on the 50 Shades front but am surprised—she took existing characters and wrote a new story around them, which both precludes the original author from ever writing anything in that vein and changes how those characters are seen. The facade of a name change is just that in my opinion.

                    I’ll admit that I’m confused as to the scenario where you were using MLP AI but it’s not my business! If it was not in a fan fic vein though, I’ll point out that while you take issue with the AI including non-canon material in its MLP training data and thus being non-representative, the owners of the MLP intellectual property would take issue with the use of their material and being too representative. Copyright is not used to preserve sanctity, it is used to monopolize profit opportunity.

                    The Babel program is merely representative of the actual library of Babel. Read the story. It’s short and it’s thoughtful.

                    Consent is a valuable concept, not a magical one. If we declare that all creators own rights to their creations for 500 years who cares? Most everything created will be forgotten long before then, people who have never heard of Rachel Ingalls will create countless stories about a mute person meeting a sea creature, and she won’t have a thing to say about it because she’s dead, and she doesn’t seem to have said anything about Del Toro making his movie about the same damn thing. Or perhaps she doesn’t have access to the funds to fight for her claim to the story? Since the other issue is that copyright only protects people and corporations who sue every fractional and imagined impingement upon their property, and it’s not always up to you as the creator what that process looks like. If you get hurt in an accident your insurance company will probably sue whoever hurt you for damages, and likewise if you publish a book through Tantor Media and someone writes a thoughtful continuation you bet Tantor’s not asking for consent.

                    Look at Star Wars. George Lucas creates a smash hit trilogy. People love it. They write tons of licensed material in-universe. He writes three more movies. They aaaare not a smash hit, but hey. People keep writing more tales in the extended universe. Who does this hurt? Fans get more material, writers make livings, Lucas makes money without having to do more work. But most creators do not make it so easy to create derivative works. Either they create more or their universe and characters die, and for whatever reason, that’s completely up to them. The absurd length of copyright claims ensures the magic their audience found in their work will whither away by the time someone who is willing to fan the flame is legally permitted to do so. Firefly will never resolve. Scavengers Reign is over, and if we catch you trying to finish the story you’ll face jail time. Westworld isn’t just unfinished, it’s functionally gone. It has been taken away. And those works were genuinely gargantuan undertakings and there is no way that was the desire of everyone involved.

                    • Nothing comes to be something from nothing. Stephen King’s It has many things in common such as the seemingly sentient balloon with Ray Bradbury’s Something This Way Wicked Comes, who took its title from Macbeth, and says he was only really convinced to write it by his friend Gene Kelly—I do not think there is something inherently immoral about this iterative process of inspiration, creation, interpretation, amalgamation and recreation. I do think there is something inherently immoral about taking claiming “the buck stops here” and arguing for the total independence of your own work. It’s all borrowed from our experiences, and our experiences are borrowed from the universe, and when we die no one should really give a shit about whether or not we would consent to something if we were, you know, not dead. Stephen King may have a legal claim to It but it is not his work alone. Maybe a strong case for outsider art being unique could convince me otherwise but I do not believe we can come to a point of finality where, after we and everyone we’ve learned from and everyone who has fed us, led us, derided and inspired us has worked on something, after we’ve taken our materials from the planet and our inspiration from nature, we can say “it’s finished, and no one else may touch it.”

                    Bonus material.