I'm really not in the know abput these things but I have seen free fangames taken down because they used copyrighted property even though the creators don't receive a penny.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It's my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we'll see if that remains true.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Copyrights and IP laws don't only come into effect if profit is made. Fan products are usually tolerated by companies because it's free advertising and fans get angry when it does get taken down.

When a fan product starts making money, it's usually because it directly competes with the original IP and then they act. Even then, Etsy has thousands of shops with copyrighted content but the small profit loss doesnt justify the loss of reputation for the companies.

That being said, it's the user who uploads it who is at fault and not the tool used to create it.

Ultimately, I think it's the platforms that let users upload copyrighted content and celebrity likenesses that should be at fault. Take for example the Taylor Swift debacle. An image generator was used to create the images sure but twitter chose to let it float on their website for a whole day even though it was most likely reported in the first 5 minutes.

There's also the fact that if we start demanding AI doesn't use copyrighted content, it kills the open source scene and cements Google and Microsoft's grip on our economy as we move towards an AI driven society.

[–] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

In my opinion making AI stop taking copyrighted content can only be enforced by making all AI development open source, datasets and models included. This is the way to loosen the control bigmonopolies like Google and Microsoft have over it.

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it's a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.

[–] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

I think that if someone uploads mario doing warcrimes to twitter and it gets viral, there is no "I made it with my own brush" that can save you from Nintendo taking the artwork down.

This example also works with a fanart of a celebrity in a sexual context without any AI use.