I have a bit of an issue with Intellectual Proprety. While a person should certainly receive credit for any effort, once a work is out there, trying to hold on to it as "proprety" can only stifle new creation from others... or even from that same individual. Intellect and other forms of expression is something to be shared and grown. In fact, ALL creativity is actually growth from things that would otherwise be commonplace. I see a work of creativity as a child. You bring it into the world, but then you have to let it grow through the experience and interactions with others. In music, sure, we give credit to the original composer... but then we let the arrangers come in, as well as performers who modify the music. This seems reasonable. Give intial credit, and give credit to those who progressively branch away from the original... but the original work should never be held as property, to be profited from in perpetuity. It should be allowed to live and grow.
A recent SCOTUS case might give hints to the future on this issue. Basically an artist made magazine cover art in the style of Andy Warhol had used for a similar cover for the same magazine. The court ruled in favor of the Warhol estate citing art needing sufficient original interpretation and that the commercial environment of how the art was displayed were significant factors. Or something like that. But then I’ve felt Lichtenstein never met these markers and made millions just presenting comic book frames in a new medium while Warhol at least made slight modifications and would combine imagery to make a statement of some sort. And Pettibon just used a specific comic book style to make wholly new images. So who knows but copyright infringement will indeed be a big issue as AI improves. I see music and visual entertainment (TV/film) being big areas.
There are just so many spots where there can be unintended consequences. I guess that's my main motivation right now: to alert folks to the idea of what these consequences might be, and to get conversations started around that concept.
I keep coming back to hip-hop "sampling." Something wholly new is being created here, but it's out of existing materials. In a perfect world, the original creator is paid some kind of royalty (Jaron Lanier talks about this in "Who Owns the Future"), so anyone who comes up with an idea is ultimately compensated for the idea.
Oh yeah, the idea's origin is tracked under Lanier's framework, so the idea's original source can always be found and paid.
Did I ever tell you about the time I interviewed Jaron Lanier at his house. Very particular dude but also one of the few “brilliant” people I’ve ever met. He clearly thinks differently than most of us.
No, but maybe we could get him to do a Q&A some time. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's undeniably visionary in some of his thinking. I'd love to tap into that some time.
I have a bit of an issue with Intellectual Proprety. While a person should certainly receive credit for any effort, once a work is out there, trying to hold on to it as "proprety" can only stifle new creation from others... or even from that same individual. Intellect and other forms of expression is something to be shared and grown. In fact, ALL creativity is actually growth from things that would otherwise be commonplace. I see a work of creativity as a child. You bring it into the world, but then you have to let it grow through the experience and interactions with others. In music, sure, we give credit to the original composer... but then we let the arrangers come in, as well as performers who modify the music. This seems reasonable. Give intial credit, and give credit to those who progressively branch away from the original... but the original work should never be held as property, to be profited from in perpetuity. It should be allowed to live and grow.
Well said. I hope I captured some of this nuance in my article, and I agree with the sentiment.
A recent SCOTUS case might give hints to the future on this issue. Basically an artist made magazine cover art in the style of Andy Warhol had used for a similar cover for the same magazine. The court ruled in favor of the Warhol estate citing art needing sufficient original interpretation and that the commercial environment of how the art was displayed were significant factors. Or something like that. But then I’ve felt Lichtenstein never met these markers and made millions just presenting comic book frames in a new medium while Warhol at least made slight modifications and would combine imagery to make a statement of some sort. And Pettibon just used a specific comic book style to make wholly new images. So who knows but copyright infringement will indeed be a big issue as AI improves. I see music and visual entertainment (TV/film) being big areas.
There are just so many spots where there can be unintended consequences. I guess that's my main motivation right now: to alert folks to the idea of what these consequences might be, and to get conversations started around that concept.
I keep coming back to hip-hop "sampling." Something wholly new is being created here, but it's out of existing materials. In a perfect world, the original creator is paid some kind of royalty (Jaron Lanier talks about this in "Who Owns the Future"), so anyone who comes up with an idea is ultimately compensated for the idea.
Oh yeah, the idea's origin is tracked under Lanier's framework, so the idea's original source can always be found and paid.
Did I ever tell you about the time I interviewed Jaron Lanier at his house. Very particular dude but also one of the few “brilliant” people I’ve ever met. He clearly thinks differently than most of us.
No, but maybe we could get him to do a Q&A some time. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's undeniably visionary in some of his thinking. I'd love to tap into that some time.