Re:Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal eart...
by pitaj on Monday April 03, 2023 @03:57PM
(#35430344)
> Why shouldn't I be the only one with the right to sell that image?
The real answer is why should you? Copyright is not a natural right (if it was, it wouldn't require enforcement actions on people who never interacted with the original copy). It's a privilege meant to provide an incentive for artists (the effectiveness of which is questionable, even without taking into consideration the negative side-effects).
> The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
And that is entirely within your rights. But once your photo is disseminated into the public sphere, it's information that you no longer have control over.
The real answer is why should you? Copyright is not a natural right (if it was, it wouldn't require enforcement actions on people who never interacted with the original copy). It's a privilege meant to provide an incentive for artists (the effectiveness of which is questionable, even without taking into consideration the negative side-effects).
> The course of action for "lose the rights in 20 years" isn't "ok, that's fine" but rather "ok, then I won't publish any of them and deal only in direct sales of prints from a gallery."
And that is entirely within your rights. But once your photo is disseminated into the public sphere, it's information that you no longer have control over.