7 ms·

>You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't obligat

>You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. >If you studied my (we will assume "unique") techniques and used them without my permission, then let us say I sue you. At that point, you would claim "fair use," On what grounds would you sue me? You think my defense would be "fair use", so you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement, and so you'd sue me for that. Well, no, I would not say "fair use", I'd say "artistic style is not copyrightable; copyright pertains to works, not to styles". There's even jurisprudence backing me up in the US. Apple tried to use Microsoft for copying the look-and-feel of their OS, and it was ruled to be non-copyrightable. Even if was so good that I was able to trick anyone into thinking that my painting of a dog carrying a tennis ball in his mouth was your work, if you've never painted anything like that you would have no grounds to sue me for copyright infringement. Now, usually in the artistic world it's considered poor manners to outright copy another artist's style, but if we're talking about rights and law, I'm sorry to say you're just wrong. And if we're talking about merely studying someone's work without copying it, that's not even frowned upon. Like I said, it's unavoidable. I don't know where you got this idea that anyone has the right to or is even capable of preventing this (beyond simply never showing it to anyone).

withinboredom 3y ago
> Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. Yeah, that's exactly why you'd get sued for copyright theft. > you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement Autocorrect screwed that wording up. I've fixed it.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you've changed, but I'll reiterate: my copying your style is not fair use. Fair use applies to copyrighted things. A style cannot be copyrighted, so if you tried to sue me for infringing upon the copyright of your artistic style, your case would be dismissed. It would be as invalid as you trying to sue me for distributing illegal copies of someone else's painting. Legally you have as much ownership of your artistic style as of that other person's painting.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Now, I just think you are arguing in bad faith. What I meant to say was clear, but I said "technique" instead. Then, instead of debating what I meant to say (you know, the actual point of the conversation), you took my words verbatim. I'm not sure where you are going with this ... but for what it's worth, techniques can be copyrighted ... even patented, or protected via trade secrets. I never said what the techniques were, and I'm not sure what you are going on about. I'll repeat this as well: "Fair use" DOES NOT EXIST unless you are getting sued. It's a legal defense when you are accused of stealing someone else's work, and there is proof you stole it. Even then, it isn't something you DO; it's something a court says YOU DID. Any time you use something with "fair use" in mind, it is the equivalent of saying, "I'm going to steal this, and hopefully, a court agrees that this is fair use." If you steal any copyrighted material, even when it is very clearly NOT fair use (such as in most AI's case), you would be a blubbering idiot NOT to claim fair use in the hopes that someone will agree. There is a crap load of case law showing "research for commercial purposes is not fair use," ... and guess who is selling access to the AI? If it's actual research, it is "free" for humanity to use (or at least as inexpensive as possible) and not for profit. Sure, some of the companies might be non-profits doing research and 'giving it away,' and those are probably using things fairly ... then there are other companies very clearly doing it for a profit (like a big software company going through code they host).
    - deadbeeves 3y ago
      >What I meant to say was clear I'm not privy to what goes on inside your head, I can only reply to what you say. >Then, instead of debating what I meant to say (you know, the actual point of the conversation), you took my words verbatim. The actual point of the conversation is about intelligent entities (either natural or artificial) copying each other's artistic styles. My answers have been within that framework. >techniques can be copyrighted ... even patented, or protected via trade secrets. First, what do you mean by "technique"? We're talking about art, right? Like, the way a person grabs a brush or pencil, or how they mix their colors...? That sort of thing? Second: >A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. Now, I may be mistaken, but I don't think an artistic technique counts as an invention. An artist might invent some kind of implement that their technique involves, in which case they can patent that device. I don't think the technique itself is patentable. If you think I'm wrong then please cite a patent on an artistic technique. Third, how do you imagine an artist using a trade secret to protect their technique? Unless they do something really out there, most skilled artists should be able to understand what they're doing just by looking at the final product. >I'll repeat this as well: "Fair use" Okay, repeat it. I don't know why, since I never said that copying someone else's style or technique is fair use. What I said was that it cannot possibly be copyright infringement, because neither styles nor techniques are copyrighted. >It's a legal defense when you are accused of stealing someone else's work I'm not going to reply to any of this until you clean up the language you're using. "Steal" is inapplicable here, as it involves the removal of physical items from someone else's possession. What are you saying? Are you talking about illegal distribution, are you talking about unauthorized adaptations, are you talking about plagiarism, or what? >"research for commercial purposes is not fair use," Sorry, what? What does that even mean? What constitutes "research" as applied to a human creation? If you say there's a crapload of case law that backs this up then I'm forced to ask you to cite it, because I honestly have no idea what you're saying.

withinboredom 3y ago

> Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. Yeah, that's exactly why you'd get sued for copyright theft. > you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement Autocorrect screwed that wording up. I've fixed it.

deadbeeves 3y ago
I'm not sure what you've changed, but I'll reiterate: my copying your style is not fair use. Fair use applies to copyrighted things. A style cannot be copyrighted, so if you tried to sue me for infringing upon the copyright of your artistic style, your case would be dismissed. It would be as invalid as you trying to sue me for distributing illegal copies of someone else's painting. Legally you have as much ownership of your artistic style as of that other person's painting.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Now, I just think you are arguing in bad faith. What I meant to say was clear, but I said "technique" instead. Then, instead of debating what I meant to say (you know, the actual point of the conversation), you took my words verbatim. I'm not sure where you are going with this ... but for what it's worth, techniques can be copyrighted ... even patented, or protected via trade secrets. I never said what the techniques were, and I'm not sure what you are going on about. I'll repeat this as well: "Fair use" DOES NOT EXIST unless you are getting sued. It's a legal defense when you are accused of stealing someone else's work, and there is proof you stole it. Even then, it isn't something you DO; it's something a court says YOU DID. Any time you use something with "fair use" in mind, it is the equivalent of saying, "I'm going to steal this, and hopefully, a court agrees that this is fair use." If you steal any copyrighted material, even when it is very clearly NOT fair use (such as in most AI's case), you would be a blubbering idiot NOT to claim fair use in the hopes that someone will agree. There is a crap load of case law showing "research for commercial purposes is not fair use," ... and guess who is selling access to the AI? If it's actual research, it is "free" for humanity to use (or at least as inexpensive as possible) and not for profit. Sure, some of the companies might be non-profits doing research and 'giving it away,' and those are probably using things fairly ... then there are other companies very clearly doing it for a profit (like a big software company going through code they host).
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    >What I meant to say was clear I'm not privy to what goes on inside your head, I can only reply to what you say. >Then, instead of debating what I meant to say (you know, the actual point of the conversation), you took my words verbatim. The actual point of the conversation is about intelligent entities (either natural or artificial) copying each other's artistic styles. My answers have been within that framework. >techniques can be copyrighted ... even patented, or protected via trade secrets. First, what do you mean by "technique"? We're talking about art, right? Like, the way a person grabs a brush or pencil, or how they mix their colors...? That sort of thing? Second: >A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. Now, I may be mistaken, but I don't think an artistic technique counts as an invention. An artist might invent some kind of implement that their technique involves, in which case they can patent that device. I don't think the technique itself is patentable. If you think I'm wrong then please cite a patent on an artistic technique. Third, how do you imagine an artist using a trade secret to protect their technique? Unless they do something really out there, most skilled artists should be able to understand what they're doing just by looking at the final product. >I'll repeat this as well: "Fair use" Okay, repeat it. I don't know why, since I never said that copying someone else's style or technique is fair use. What I said was that it cannot possibly be copyright infringement, because neither styles nor techniques are copyrighted. >It's a legal defense when you are accused of stealing someone else's work I'm not going to reply to any of this until you clean up the language you're using. "Steal" is inapplicable here, as it involves the removal of physical items from someone else's possession. What are you saying? Are you talking about illegal distribution, are you talking about unauthorized adaptations, are you talking about plagiarism, or what? >"research for commercial purposes is not fair use," Sorry, what? What does that even mean? What constitutes "research" as applied to a human creation? If you say there's a crapload of case law that backs this up then I'm forced to ask you to cite it, because I honestly have no idea what you're saying.