I used to work as a UI/UX designer when we bought our, now late, grandmother an iPad Air 2 so she could "stay connected." This was around the iOS 8 era, and helping her through the setup process turned out to be an eye-opening experience for me – and for my then-profession:
"Yes, yes, darling, I see all these cryptic hieroglyphs [icons] – but I don’t know what they mean. Am I supposed to? Where can I look them up?"
I'm using Anthropic's pay-as-you-go API, since it was easier to set up on the server than CC's CLI/web login method. Running the bot costs me ~$1.8 per month.
The bot is based on Mario Zechner's excellent work[1] - so all credit goes to him!
I had a tour of Imagineering nearly a decade ago, and it was truly magical, leaving a lasting impression on me. It felt akin to what I imagine Xerox PARC or Bell Labs were like in their heydays.
Let's advocate for robust protections and support systems for artists, ensuring they can secure a sustainable and comfortable livelihood from their creative work.
Once they hit the tipping point of broad cultural absorbtion (think Banksy) AND/OR raking in absurd amounts of cash, move their IP into the public domain more aggressively (think Disney, NYT, etc.). How exactly this would work should be debated.
They'd still own the IP and have all the rights to use it commercially, but other's would be able to use it as inspiration, remix and maybe even resell it if attributed (or cheaply licensed).
In other words: "IP-Tax" the unproportionally successful.
I agree, but by extension of provoking emotion it CAN change society, but it doesn't have to - wether on purpose or not.
The point I was trying to make was that occupying mindspace, providing inspiration, being culturally influencal etc. are idealistic, non-monitary rewards that should be part of the equation when discussing alleged IP-theft, remixing, attribution and so on.
I'm not saying their shouldn't be any rules. All I'm saying is that there should be a discussion of how we want to handle these things going forward. This train ain't stopping.
Maybe your avg DeviantArt painter needs more IP-protection and -rights than Damien Hurst? Maybe an unknown, independent blogger doing important original research should be attributed more prominently than an article by The Times? Idk.
I might be a bit idealistic, but I've always believed that the core purpose of art and publishing should be to influence culture and society, not just to make a heap of money. That's why I feel original work needs its protection, but it should enter the public domain much sooner to fuel creativity and inspiration. We should be thinking in terms of a few years for this transition, not decades.
"Yes, yes, darling, I see all these cryptic hieroglyphs [icons] – but I don’t know what they mean. Am I supposed to? Where can I look them up?"
That was a long day.