naraku360

So, you're not employed?

That's an insane thing to claim. I guess no anime with the commonly accepted "anime" art style is art if it wasn't the first one? We have art museums that buy a canvas with a dot on it for a million dollars. The amount of effort a human puts in is irrelevant to whether or not something is art. Humans make bad, lazy art all the time. Art can be criticized on its merits and it's lazy criticism to make it about the tool rather than the use.

See, you lose me at stolen since it is being altered to a significant degree. It doesn't matter how well it was put together or if it's a computer. The transformative element is what I care about.

Dude, what?

Whether or not AI gives credit is up to the maker, just like any other form of art. AI art is just a method of creation. How it's used isn't universal. I agree not everyone has the resources of Disney. However, this isn't a one-way street. Normal people traditionally would not be able to make something like this: They wrote the script, filmed the footage, and edited it together. All the AI did was convert into an animation style resembling Vampire Hunter D, which they credit as the source for animation. Personally, it has such little to do with Vampire Hunter D that I don't necessarily think the citation was even needed, but I appreciate it being included. This is like the early 2000s copyright arguments about AMVs. I've always held the stance that so long as it is properly credited, I don't really care if all the components are inherently original. If I write and produce a scene that involves a song I like, I don’t think permission matters much, especially when monetary gain isn't a factor. I've been getting more iffy on copyright laws with how often corporations abuse it, and if I like your song, then I like your song and wanted to use it for my own thing, and I don’t have the money to jump through a million licensing hoops to use a song in a video that either isn't monetized or where the song is a part of a greater whole, not the focus. I'm not even sure how much I agree with not being able to monetize purely based on the inclusion of another person's work if you're applying that work in a transformative way.

They're not common any more. The computer is more likely to simply stop running than to blue screen these days. I think I've gotten a blue screen like twice in the laat 10+ years and it's not really the death sentence it once was.

That's our Packard.

The 90s called. They want your computer back.

You said you wouldn't tell anyone!

I'm touchy about the subject because I would like to use it to accommodate disabilities that prevent me from doing art traditionally. I don't have much confidence already without the endless barrage of people effectively saying the only form of art I think I might be able to use will never be good, and being clearly unwilling to have basic conversations about it. Every time I see it, I'm reminded how useless I am.

The more important part was the director not wanting footage used for a negative review. Can the director just ban their footage from reviews posted to Youtube? The answer, by the way, is literally no. If they put a copyright strike on it, it's a crime because it is protected by Fair Use and false strikes are not legal. Doesn't stop people, but it's protected. What we do all day, spamming memes we found on the internet, is quite literally more theft than what you're describing. As for the pausing movie thing, I was getting at more along the lines of death of the author. Like you can't control the work after it's out in the wild. The standard doesn't work when applied elsewhere. The plagiarism claim would not hold up in court when the result is completely different from the original.

shut up packard

I just never really got this argument. I'm sure a movie director might get upset that footage of their film was used in a negative review, but it's not their right to stop someone from using it in a transformative way. The author doesn't own how people use their art in their own time. The director doesn't get to burst into my house and scream at me to stop pausing so often, so why should self-entitled artists get to control images that are unrecognizable from the original?

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Can't say I expected MTG to have me excited for her bullshit.

How is MTG managing to be reasonable? Wtf is happening?

Actual cannibal, Packard.

Dude, check out the nipples though.

You need a fact checker to count to 6?

Nah, that would get him a spot in Trump's administration. Packard isn't so ambitious.

You know, you would have a much easier time talking to people if you bothered to pay attention to who it is, right?