Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her turned into an AI model

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by int_19h on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @11:40PM (#33431190)

Many (most?) software developers believe that software shouldn't be patentable at all. Many also believe that copyright terms should be way shorter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by trention on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @01:40AM (#33431769)

They only believe this because this won't (immediately) affect their material prospects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by Aerroon on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @05:06AM (#33433025)

Or maybe they genuinely believe that the content they make today shouldn't be copyrighted for the next 100 years? Lifetime of the author +70 years is a very long time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by trention on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @06:28AM (#33433658)

Given a binary choice between unemployability and extending patent protection to (even) snippets of code, I am quite confident that 90+% of salaried developers today will chose the latter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by ClumsyPilot on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @09:11AM (#33435136)

thats not the argument we are discussing - the question is should these protections exist at all. We are talking about denying the artists all protection, only fair to confront developers with the same dialemma.

Whether they are 3 years or 300 is a finer point, and is only worth discussing after nessesity and legitimacy of sich protections is established

[ Parent | on HN ]