82
French MPs want to amend EU's copyright rules to cover generative AI
(www.euractiv.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
82 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What they should do is reduce the copyright duration. Lifetime+70years is way too loong
I think 20 years should be plenty to earn money from a creative work.
Imagine the cultural possibilities if everything before 2004 was public domain...
Don't you think it's rather strange for an artist, if people can use their art how ever they want during the artist lifetime?
Why? It's how patents always have worked. And even with a maximum of 20 years for patents they are more often used to stifle innovation rather than encourage it.
Copyright and patents should start at 5 years, and then be possible to extend 5 years at a time up to 20 years if the company owning the copyright or patent can prove it's still in active use and not only used to prevent others from moving forward.
Art is not the same as technology. Artist have a rather personal and intimate connection to their creation, while at the same time the usability of art is not crucial for advancement of society, like it is with technology. Therefore it seems fair to me that an artist has the right to stop his art from being used in context he does not like. For example a liberal artist work used for advancement of racist propaganda.
There is a difference between technology and art. Me having rights for my art does not really hinder anyone else from creating art, at least not how a patent prevents a technology being used.
If you are not engaging with my main argument: personal and intimate relationship between art and artist, I don't really see a point in conversation. And I think that an individual does also have right to be protected from society.
Fair, than we fundamentally disagree on nature and value of art and even the role of society and individuals. That would be a rather long discussion to have.
Not sure how that is related to my argument, but even less sure why artists seem to be the only people who don't deserve to own the product of their work. But yeah, sounds nice and poetic.
But that already happens all the time. Vedy often the rights end up in the hands of some corporation and the author gets to have ~zero say in how it's used.
Doesn't seem to have been a particularly big issue.
But the author has to sell his rights for this first, which he should be able to decide for himself.