Comment by chrisweekly

Comment by chrisweekly a day ago

3 replies

(below is my shallow res, maybe naive?) That might inject a ton of $ into "IP", doing further damage to the creative commons. How can we support remix culture for humans, while staving off ultimately-destructive AI slop? Maybe copyleft / creative-commons licenses w/ explicit anti-AI prohibitions? Tho that could have bad ramifications too. ALL of this makes me kind of uncomfortable and sad, I want more creativity and fewer lawyers.

mcmcmc a day ago

> doing further damage to the creative commons

Not sure I understand this part. Because creators would be getting paid for their works being used for someone else’s commercial gain?

  • chrisweekly a day ago

    Because it reinforces the idea that creative works should usually involve lawyers.

    • mcmcmc 12 hours ago

      No it doesn’t. It reinforces that copyright is the law. If you don’t violate someone’s copyright, you don’t need a lawyer.