Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
I know ghiblifying everything is fun, but it really showcases how if we don’t have effective IP protection for individuals by default we’ve ceded all value from creative generation to pre-existing capital owners with distribution + legal Also we basically turn all artists into interns working “for exposure”
14 replies
4 recasts
40 reactions
Tudor 🟣🟡
@tudorizer
isn't IP protection a futile endeavour given the non-rivalrous nature of data/information economies? it's why cc0 caught my eyes in the first place, as well as alternative revenue models.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
I think the definition of what IP protection means probably needs to change a lot, but the nature of “hey someone can replicate your signature visual identity at nation state distribution level scale likely with the ability to destroy the value of the original IP with essentially no effort” needs to be reckoned with in the modern legal system We’re like a 4 month sustained black hat campaign of Nazi ghibli images away from this art style being “Nazi Art style” except with every signature style now. Courts need new mechanisms to deal with that and I don’t think the answer is shrugging and being like “okay yea this is the default we’re just gonna live with”
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Tudor 🟣🟡
@tudorizer
defo not shrugging here I agree the law needs to catch up, although it's notoriously slow and underpowered in front of global phenomenons. the codification of law, as well as executive powers is what sparked the posibilities of cc0 making sense in the context of decentralised blockchains. we're not there yet though and won't be in the current direction.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
