"How to identify original works by artists? How to attribute works generated by AI intermediaries? How to remunerate authors whose works have been used? How to manage opt-outs for artists who refuse their content to be used by AI? These are the questions that require a review of the copyright directive in light of generative AI,” says Mireille Clapot, the Member of Parliament leading on the opinion and President of France’s National Assembly’s High Commission for Digital and Posts (CNSP).
Although Clapot and her colleagues welcome the AI Act, they believe the Copyright Directive will have to be amended because of the recent technological developments in AI.
Why? It’s how patents always have worked. And even with a maximum of 20 years for patents they are more often used to stifle innovation rather than encourage it.
Copyright and patents should start at 5 years, and then be possible to extend 5 years at a time up to 20 years if the company owning the copyright or patent can prove it’s still in active use and not only used to prevent others from moving forward.
Art is not the same as technology. Artist have a rather personal and intimate connection to their creation, while at the same time the usability of art is not crucial for advancement of society, like it is with technology. Therefore it seems fair to me that an artist has the right to stop his art from being used in context he does not like. For example a liberal artist work used for advancement of racist propaganda.
Removed by mod
There is a difference between technology and art. Me having rights for my art does not really hinder anyone else from creating art, at least not how a patent prevents a technology being used.
Removed by mod
If you are not engaging with my main argument: personal and intimate relationship between art and artist, I don’t really see a point in conversation. And I think that an individual does also have right to be protected from society.
Removed by mod
Fair, than we fundamentally disagree on nature and value of art and even the role of society and individuals. That would be a rather long discussion to have.
Not sure how that is related to my argument, but even less sure why artists seem to be the only people who don’t deserve to own the product of their work. But yeah, sounds nice and poetic.
But that already happens all the time. Vedy often the rights end up in the hands of some corporation and the author gets to have ~zero say in how it’s used.
Doesn’t seem to have been a particularly big issue.
But the author has to sell his rights for this first, which he should be able to decide for himself.