• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not that there’d be no reason to buy/license it for commercial use, it’s that it would be impossible to do so. Downstream users simply couldn’t legally use it at all – no matter how much or little they wanted to pay – unless they were willing to release their work as copyleft, too.

    In other words, making* AI output copyleft maximizes freedom, but it’s hardly “free.” And that impossibly-high cost to those who would leech is why it would be a good thing.

    (* Or rather, affirming it as such in court, since it’s already rightfully copyleft by virtue of having already used copyleft input. It wouldn’t be a change in status, but rather a recognition of what the status always was.)

    • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel this assumes two things.

      1. AI art would be used in products that can be copyrighted in the first place, and not things like marketing/political campaigns or decor.

      2. depending on the exact license agreement, you could use copylefted things in commercial products. The actual art can be free to reuse/share, but the rest of product may not be; things like illustrations in a book say (an analogy I drew up based on how Android works, commercial products based on a copylefted component).