You don't post your art on X, right? Well, anything you posted isn't actually yours anymore. It belongs to Elon Musk now. He can straight up sell your work and you don't get anything :)))https://x.com/en/tos
>>7878962being an artoid has always been charity based, artists have never had the money to defend themselves legally anyway. Any "defence" has always purely been outrage centred.
>>7878969Not sure why you're doing apologetics for the richest man on earth. Why exactly are they allowed to just do this? I know the USA has become a fourth world corpofascist shithole, but this is a new low. This doesn't just apply to art btw. It's ANY Content, including your real life photos and likeness. Are you people really just cattle for the elites now?
>>7878962My work is censored on those sites.
>>7878976>Are you people really just cattle for the elites now?There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste.
>Well, anything you posted isn't actually yours anymore. It belongs to Elon Musk now.But it doesn't say that. It says by publishing on Xitter you're granting them a non-exclusive "license" to do a bunch of bullshit with your work. In theory, anyway.In practice, I'm not sure how this affects me. It comes across as "neener neener, I'm better than you by infinity+1" type of nonsense. Just silly words. Musk is going to publish and monetize my weirdo gonzo art? Really? I'd like to see him try lol.
>twitter/x bullshit in the big 26 kek
>>7878988other X users can AI edit your art right on the platform, remove your watermarks, post it and claim it as their own work, and there's nothing you can do about it apparently because you accepted the terms.
isnt this LITERALLY every social media site lmaotheres no difference lil bro
>>7879007I don't care
>>7878962this doesn't matter to white voidceliods
>>7878962Does this mean Elon owns child porn? Because that is what I use X for lately
>>7878962I'm tired of these threads. Nobody cares about your drama that isn't related to art critique in the least.If you don't want people using your art for whatever reason - AI, photobashing, tracing, or using it as toilet paper (which would be fitting for a nodraw fag like you) - don't post it in public. This includes posting it on a public platform.
>>7879010Nope. X is more far-gone than most.>>7878988It literally say that, though. Posting on their platform now means you consents to give them all the rights over what you post, considers it fair and cannot ask for compensation regardless of what they do. No mention of retroactivity and it doesn't matter if the poster is an art thief. They still own that.
>>7879126>>7879007>>7878962elon derangement syndrome
>deleted my xitter 1 year agoi saw it coming even before i knew itBasically, that ToS gives them the right to do with whatever you post as they want.They might not sell your work, but they might as well plagiarize it and by using the platform, you have no right to do anything against it.No sane person would keep using that shithole.
>>7878962that's literally every single platform, retardwithout those rights, they can't do shit like retweetingare you 12
>can't even fight this shit in courtjej americans want to be slaves so let them I guess, just laugh at them when they realize it far too late
>>7878962This has been on every social media site for literal decades, slowpoke
didnt read any other reply but the title so basically no-one is making it big on X just by posting there— i mean, the typa big that your family members think about art, like the classics or somethin'. X is a website of slop that is 50% indian bot farms and 50% just makes me sad all the time
>>7878976>muh billionaires>muh corpofascismpost your work or get your politics-addled brain off of our board, filthy touristimagine lacking the self-awareness to realize how painfully embarrassing you sound
>>7878962Like anon said. This is all big tech social media sites. Does Bluesky do it too.
>>7878962Thats literally why copyright exists anon. its been like this for 300+ years ever since copyright was invented in England in 1709Copyright was a thing they invented for the purpose of you selling "your" (completely invented) rights of "your" works to publishers and other rich guys for *their* profitIdea that authors have inherit rights over their works and that they can sell it or give it to anyone like any other good in the economy is a nice feel good fairy tale they came up with to basically legalize theft in the eyes of the government and public. Because publishers know and will make sure that authors will always be dependent on them.Funniest thing about this is that it took publishers 10 years of lobbying to get the English parliament to agree to pass the law. English parliament saw right through their tricks initially so publishers literally pretended to be poor struggling families briging their kids and wearing raggy clothing to convince the parliament to pass this bullshit law. That's how pathetic they are.Anyway thats why for example gundam is "owned" by bandai-namco not by its authors and profits of gundam go to the faceless ceos and thats also why when we talk about video games we always talk about publishers not even the development company let alone its artists and developers. Thats why mangakas struggle even if their work is internationally popular and make astronomic profits for the publishers.This is the reason why more or less rich authors always tend to create their own companies because thats about the only way authors can gain back some of the profits of their own workLearn some history you faggots.
>>7878962Doesn't every site where you can submit images have a clause like this on their site for legal reasons? I remember a huge controversy way back when because Deviantart had a clause similar to this too.I wouldn't be shocked if facebook's terms & conditions were the same, word for word, when it comes to this thing.There's legalities and risk management that needs to come from user submitted content - you may think that simply having a license to permanently display your submitted images would be enough, but what if some place publicly displays their tweets? Now suddenly the images are arguably being used for advertising, and now twitter is in hot water. What about people displaying a tweet on their site, is that covered by your legal terms?...So a more extreme legal contract like his basically closes the door on their being any issue with twitter stealing people's work, legally, because they have the license to do anything with it.And why worry? It's not like twitter or elon wants to do anything with your shitty art anyway.
>>7879377publishers and corps own IPs because the creators work for them. they made an agreement, whether it was contracted, sold, have limited license, or are employed to make shit. You dont need to be rich to own your IP and publish it yourself.
>>7878962It doesn't matter. no one wants to use my trash art anyway.
>>7878976>fascistYou don't even know the fucking meaning of the word, shit-for-brains.Redditors and Bskyfags need to get the fuck off of this website and go back to the stygian pits of hell they crawled out of, holy shit am I tired of these mentally retarded faggots spamming thinly veiled /pol/shit on every single fucking board. I guarantee you fuckers don't even draw.
>>7878962literally every website that allows users to upload content has this, "showing an image on a webpage" requires a license to modify and distribute, otherwise you couldn't copy the files from your computer to their server
>>7879139>I like being a bootlicker and a cuckSad.>>7879378Not every site use you to train and play with AI yet. DA and X do, however.>>7879377Let's not pretend AI respect copyrights.
>>7879443>Not every site use you to train and play with AI yet. DA and X do, however.Not really the point I was arguing from, but there is that too, though that's a little more legally dubious; the OP's highlighted portion was for licensing for display on their site and ensuring there was no legal holes for doing such - to use everything uploaded on their site as a means of training an ai and creating market replacements for them, is arguably something that no one uploading their work to the site thought would reasonably happen, and perhaps leaves them still open to lawsuits, though this is a different discussion altogether.
>>7879403re read my post.>publishers and corps own IPs becauseyou as an author have no choose but to give "your" ip over to them for their profit or else you will be unemployed and poor in return *maybe* you get 30% of the profit.the game is rigged against authors via the copyright law since it legitimatizes theft for the rich.>>7879443lets not pretend that copyright is something good.disrespect of all IP law is based and good since all of it was designed to benefit people who have had 0 involvement with the production of the work at the cost of the authorI seriously do not understand what the anti-ai/pro-copyright argument is. Do they think that if openai or whatever stop pirating they will go bankrupt or something? and that will be a win for "us"? or are they just being corpo shills?IP law is the very thing that makes openai profit if AI was declared public property all these companies would actually go bankrupt for example.
>>7880109>I seriously do not understand what the pro-copyright argument is.>"Oh that's a nice book/film/drawing you've made there, and now with my greater resources, I'm going to produce, distribute, and profit from it more than you ever could, and completely drown out your release. Thanks for all the hard work, buddy"I don't understand how you can't understand the basic fundamental reason the laws were made. Sure the laws often misused by rich cunts, as everything is, but it's still blatantly obvious how they benefit the creative.Though this all seems mute when the courts won't use these very laws to defend the creatives who have essentially been burgled en mass by these billion dollar tech companies. If they're not going to uphold copyright laws when they really matter, don't uphold them at all.>Do they think that if openai or whatever stop pirating they will go bankrupt or something? and that will be a win for "us"?Yes. If it was found that using copyrighted work to train these AIs was a breach of said copyright, that would, in fact, basically bankrupt these companies. Why do you think they used all those copyrighted materials in the first place? That's what they needed to make their product. So even if it wouldn't bankrupt the company, it would completely neuter their AI and destroy their product, which is essentially the same thing as bankruptcy at that point.Not that any of that is necessary anyway, since openai looks to be going bankrupt without any outside forces.>IP law is the very thing that makes openai profitGenerated content can't be copyrighted, so that is incorrect. AI companies' income is because they're seen as a way of either replacing labour, or producing products at such a cheap cost that it doesn't matter that it doesn't have legal protections, because it will still make a profit (to no benefit to the consumer, since the product isn't any cheaper on the store shelf).
insane that all these ai dicksuckers won't just use slopgpt to argue their mentally ill midwit takes only spewed to affirm their shitty brainwashing like a tranny trying to normalize loli porn
>>7878962I'm not sure if Musk is going to want to sell the wedgie troon porn I post on my private
>>7878962>We are a platform, we don't take responsibility for anything posted on it.... You will give us a license to use it how ever we see fit though. ????????????????? wtf>>7879120>If you don't want to be raped don't walk outside in skimpy clothesThat's what you sound like. Why don't you argue that humans shouldn't exploit eachother. If I email my art to my friend I they shouldn't make money off my work nor should they give it to someone who would. I can't believe this has to be said. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A FUCKING AFRICAN/INDIAN SHITHOLE WERE PEOPLE KILL AND RAPE EACHOTHER ALL DAY AND THE PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE ARE ALL KILLED OR RAPED TIL THEY STOP WORKING
Art is and has never been productive. It's a miracle of modern capitalism that we've managed to mangle society into a form where people could get paid to draw at all. AI art is just a correction. Yet society stays mangled. We have to further mangle society so that whatever useless shit you retards do next (that machines can't do) is valuable. How about art critique? nothing is more useless than that... Oh wait AI can already do that. Any other ideas? I guess influencer is already on the rise. verified human Yelp/product reviewers etc, things AI can't really do (sure they can make fake reviews but.Or maybe you buy/notary insurance for AI output and become liable when it breaks something. Most likely we just all start using VR and that makes a bunch of ludicrous jobs for everyone. I personally want to be an a virtual quest giver/ adventurer guild receptionist by day and loli prostitute by night Though an AI could just do both of those jobsOk so literally every person becomes a divine king (due to having a soul) while AIs become the army chambers jester pesants etc and we all compete against other kingdoms (soul havers)So it's alot like various isekai novels where for example the "loser" who gets beheaded just goes back to the lobby where they are good friends with the guy who just killed him, even though he spent a whole life time or thousands of years caring for the kingdom. The soul haver role is just symbolic and it gives metaphysical weight to the AIs so they know they are working for a purpose. And by making a human the symbolic "head" you can control the billions of AIsI'm gonna set it up so my AIs have a group of heros try to over throw me every few generation and I NTR the MC right infront of him every time. Only for every 1000 years or so I get "actually defeated" and body snatch my successor
>>7880978>Art is and has never been productive.How so? It produces something. The value of that thing can be debatable, but there is value in beauty.I don't want to look at a blank wall all day, and would rather have a painting to look at instead. Beauty is something that elevates not just the feeling of that particular area, but can elevate the mood of someone for the rest of the day.You could eat from a dogdish with just your bare hands, a knife and fork aren't 'necessary', and is probably slower and therefore less productive, but much of the unnecessary stuff just makes us feel better and makes our lives feel more worth while.If we have a broader interpretation of 'art', including books, movies, plays, etc, then art's necessity in our lives becomes that much more obvious.As for the rest of your post, the stuff about ai lolis fucking your asshole or whatever, I sort of glazed over that.
>>7878962I will make lolicunny free for everyone on /x/
