It is very different legally if you are getting economic benefits from scrapping. If it was done by data brokers to sell the images or an AI company to train a model then you can definitely sue them.
Taking someone else’s art and passing it off as your own is taking credit for someone else’s work and severs all connections between artist and consumer.
Maybe I can shed some light here, but maybe it’s also just arguing on the internet…
The problem is the following: imagine you’re an artist with a physical shop. People go to your shop, they like your art and take pictures of it with their phone. That’s the second best thing that can happen to you. (after someone buying your art or hiring you for commissioned work ofc). Bc the artist gets popularity from it. Now imagine somebody sets up a new storefront in front of the artists shop. Shows the artists work, but takes away the name. Says they can commission any piece that’s like the artist’s work, but for free. The artist makes no revenue anymore. They don’t get popularity, bc the new shop shows it’s own name and hides the artist. Now the artist goes bankrupt. The fake store front moves over to the next artist’s shop and repeats the trick. Until they’re all out of work.
Many artists like piracy. Bc it means people talk about your work. It gets shared and makes you popular, which inevitably leads to more buying customers at some point.
Ai scrapers though mean you’re not gaining in popularity anymore. So you starve, and that’s the problem
We’re not talking about AI scraping generally, we’re talking about a space that tries to replicate something between Instagram and DeviantArt while keeping scrapers out.
I say that’s impossible to sustain, unless they make the site highly inaccessible.
I’m not saying I don’t want it to; that’d be great if it could. But they are fighting an impossible battle, IMO.
People on here hate AI and like piracy/not paying for content. Makes perfect sense to me. Doesn’t change my mind. They want to dunk, at least that is what it feels like.
Is it publicly accessible? Then it is not practical to defend.
If a customer can view your art on their device than they can save it. Same deal as with streaming videos. Piracy cuts both ways.
It is very different legally if you are getting economic benefits from scrapping. If it was done by data brokers to sell the images or an AI company to train a model then you can definitely sue them.
Whether the scraper seeks profit or not doesnt change the technical issue.
…And if the for-profit scrapers were scared of legal trouble, they wouldnt be doing it.
and yet if you pay for Netflix and torrent black mirror withour a VPN you will get a cease and desist… curious!
/hj
Most people on here are pro piracy. And consequences for piracy are rare.
Using someone else’s work to create a competitor is not piracy
Sure is. You are just making a copy without compensation and using it as you see fit.
Still no.
The distinction:
Piracy is an availability problem.
Taking someone else’s art and passing it off as your own is taking credit for someone else’s work and severs all connections between artist and consumer.
Someone else’s work not being available at a “competitive” price for training is a problem here.
An apple tv exclusive being pirated by someone without apple tv is very similar.
Theyre rare if you know what youre doing, sure.
They’re rare generally. C&Ds for torrenting in many countries are practically non-existent, unless you’re a big uploader.
how are the artists engaging in any piracy?
what an astoundingly obtuse take
Yes.
Thats basically a truism, and it has nothing to do with the scraper’s motivations or legality.
I dont understand why you are getting downvoted.
Maybe I can shed some light here, but maybe it’s also just arguing on the internet… The problem is the following: imagine you’re an artist with a physical shop. People go to your shop, they like your art and take pictures of it with their phone. That’s the second best thing that can happen to you. (after someone buying your art or hiring you for commissioned work ofc). Bc the artist gets popularity from it. Now imagine somebody sets up a new storefront in front of the artists shop. Shows the artists work, but takes away the name. Says they can commission any piece that’s like the artist’s work, but for free. The artist makes no revenue anymore. They don’t get popularity, bc the new shop shows it’s own name and hides the artist. Now the artist goes bankrupt. The fake store front moves over to the next artist’s shop and repeats the trick. Until they’re all out of work.
Many artists like piracy. Bc it means people talk about your work. It gets shared and makes you popular, which inevitably leads to more buying customers at some point. Ai scrapers though mean you’re not gaining in popularity anymore. So you starve, and that’s the problem
We’re not talking about AI scraping generally, we’re talking about a space that tries to replicate something between Instagram and DeviantArt while keeping scrapers out.
I say that’s impossible to sustain, unless they make the site highly inaccessible.
I’m not saying I don’t want it to; that’d be great if it could. But they are fighting an impossible battle, IMO.
People on here hate AI and like piracy/not paying for content. Makes perfect sense to me. Doesn’t change my mind. They want to dunk, at least that is what it feels like.