• the_q@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    The difference is the generated images weren’t created from work or imagination, it was stolen.

    • rnercle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      owning “imagination” or ideas, images or even melodies is a new idea for humanity. For most of our history people wouldn’t even think of owning an idea and profiting from its reproduction.

      • atomicorange@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        If I paint a study of Van Gogh’s Starry Night, even though I painted it it’s NOT my art. Trying to sell a reproduction without acknowledgment that I’m not the original artist is forgery and fraud.

        • rnercle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          If I paint a study of Van Gogh’s Starry Night, even though I painted it it’s NOT my art. Trying to sell a reproduction without acknowledgment that I’m not the original artist is forgery and fraud.

          you’re still looking at art through the lens (window, frame) of today, my comment was to remind that this proprietary way of seeing art wasn’t always the norm. “Original artist” is itself a product of the market. There were no fraudsters, only artisans making images.

          Van Gogh is an interesting example, whose paintings wasn’t worth a cent during his life. Others, later on, profited from his work.

          Art world itself is full of absurd examples working on these ideas. (Latest must be the Comedian.