![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48" height="48"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Hi,
Dear Ms. Kala,
Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion and the depth of your insights. I understand your concerns and I agree that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed. Let's delve deeper into each of your points:
1. Increase price of unit: While it is true that artists face challenges in an evolving market, your assertion that raising prices is unfeasible neglects important considerations. The value of art is not solely determined by the cost of production but also by its unique qualities, artist reputation, and demand from collectors. I agree that the current practices can be exploitative and that they pose a significant challenge for artists. However, I believe that artists can still differentiate themselves and add value to their work in ways that generative AI models cannot replicate. The uniqueness of an artist's work, their reputation, and the demand from collectors are factors that can influence the price of their work[1]. I understand that this may not be feasible for all artists, especially those in certain industries, but it's one of the strategies that artists can consider.
[1]: Durand, C., & Milberg, W. (2020). Intellectual monopoly in global value chains. Retrieved from hal.science/hal-01850438/d
2.Collaboration with AI: The concept of human-machine co-creation has been a topic of discussion for several years, and I also have been contributing to this discourse through our research [1]. The ethical implications of using generative AI models are indeed significant and warrant careful consideration. However, it's important to note that the datasets used to train these models don't necessarily have to be composed solely of other people's copyrighted works. There are alternatives, such as using works that are in the public domain or have explicit licensing, or even creating original datasets. AI can indeed serve as a tool for artists, but it's crucial that it's used responsibly and ethically. The development of AI models that respect these principles is a step in the right direction [2].
[1]: Kato et al (2018). DeepWear: a case study of collaborative design between human and artificial intelligence. Retrieved from digitalnature.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/wp-content/upl 
[2]: Torresen, J. (2018). A Review of Future and Ethical Perspectives of Robotics and AI. Retrieved from duo.uio.no/bitstream/1085
3. Selling the fact that artwork has been copied: I understand your concerns about the feasibility of this approach. Indeed, it's a complex issue that requires careful consideration. However, the advent of blockchain technology and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) offers a new perspective. NFTs, which are unique digital assets stored on a blockchain, have the potential to provide artists with a mechanism to reclaim the value of their work[1]. When an artwork is tokenized as an NFT, it can be bought and sold on the blockchain, and each transaction is recorded. This allows artists to receive royalties every time their artwork is resold[2]. This approach may not work for all artists, but it's a strategy that can be considered in the digital art space.
[1]: Murray, M. (2022). NFTs and the Art World – What's Real, and What's Not. Retrieved from doi.org/10.5070/lr8291
[2]: Laud, G., Pardhi, A., Wadekar, A., Shukla, S., Loya, V., Adane, P., & Dhawan, V. (2022). ManiacNFT: An Application for NFT Marketplace. Retrieved from doi.org/10.47164/ijngc
4. Preparedness for exploitation: I respectfully disagree that the rapid development of technology has presented challenges that artists could not have anticipated because as far as we know collaboration with AI towards next fast AI era is one of the important topic for digital artists for at least 8 years. However, I believe that artists, industries, and policymakers have a responsibility to adapt and protect creative works[1]. Just as the Impressionists adapted to the technological advancements of their time, artists today need to navigate the complexities of the digital age, including the creation and minting of NFTs[2][3]. This is not a new phenomenon, as artists have always had to adapt to new technologies and mediums. For example, the popular culture in Japan, including manga and anime, has been deeply influenced by the technological advancements and has significantly contributed to the country's cultural and economic discourse[4].
[1]: Margoni, T., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). A Deeper Look into the EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions: Harmonisation, Data Ownership, and the Future of Technology. Retrieved from lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/20.5
[2]: "Impressionism." Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressio
[3]: "Non-fungible token." Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungi
[4]: "Popular Culture and Workplace Gendering Among Variety of Capitalism: Manga Representations in Japan" [Full Text](eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/78699/1/Popula)
5. Laws and enforcement:
Your argument that existing laws are sufficient disregards the need for adapting legal frameworks to address the specific challenges posed by emerging technologies. While copyright laws provide a foundation, their application to new technologies like generative AI requires careful consideration. By clarifying and updating legislation, along with proactive enforcement measures, we can establish an environment that supports innovation while protecting the rights of artists. Ethical practices should be promoted alongside legal frameworks to encourage responsible technological advancements that benefit both creators and society. The advent of photography, for instance, posed new challenges for copyright law, which led to legal amendments to protect the rights of photographers4. Similarly, the rise of the internet necessitated changes in copyright law to address issues related to digital content5. Today, we face similar challenges with the advent of AI and NFTs, and it's crucial that our legal frameworks evolve to address these new realities6. I agree that companies should not rely on exploitative practices and that they need to improve their products to comply with existing laws.
[1]: Brettell, R. R. (1986). Modern Art 1851-1929: Capitalism and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2]: Paul, C. (2008). Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
[3]: Boucher, B. (2021). How Do NFTs Work and Why Are They Suddenly Everywhere? Retrieved from artnews.com/art-news/news/
[4]: Hannavy, J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography. New York: Routledge.
[5]: Litman, J. (2001). Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books.
[6]: Margoni, T., & Perry, M. (2020). Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation. Stanford Technology Law Review.
In conclusion, I appreciate your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree with many of your assertions. It is crucial to navigate the complexities of technological advancements while upholding ethical principles and safeguarding artists' rights. By embracing responsible practices, engaging in constructive dialogue, and leveraging innovative tools, we can strike a balance that allows for technological advancement while respecting the integrity of the artistic process.
Overall, I share your concerns about the current state of generative AI technology and its impact on artists. I believe that we need to navigate these challenges carefully, uphold ethical principles, and safeguard artists' rights. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion and I look forward to continuing this important conversation.
Thank you for your continued engagement on this topic. I hope this response addresses your concerns more comprehensively and encourages further meaningful discussions.
Sincerely,
Dr. Yoichi Ochiai
[2]: Torresen, J. (2018). A Review of Future and Ethical Perspectives of Robotics and AI. Retrieved from duo.uio.no/bitstream/1085
3. Selling the fact that artwork has been copied: I understand your concerns about the feasibility of this approach. Indeed, it's a complex issue that requires careful consideration. However, the advent of blockchain technology and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) offers a new perspective. NFTs, which are unique digital assets stored on a blockchain, have the potential to provide artists with a mechanism to reclaim the value of their work[1]. When an artwork is tokenized as an NFT, it can be bought and sold on the blockchain, and each transaction is recorded. This allows artists to receive royalties every time their artwork is resold[2]. This approach may not work for all artists, but it's a strategy that can be considered in the digital art space.
[1]: Murray, M. (2022). NFTs and the Art World – What's Real, and What's Not. Retrieved from doi.org/10.5070/lr8291
[2]: Laud, G., Pardhi, A., Wadekar, A., Shukla, S., Loya, V., Adane, P., & Dhawan, V. (2022). ManiacNFT: An Application for NFT Marketplace. Retrieved from doi.org/10.47164/ijngc
4. Preparedness for exploitation: I respectfully disagree that the rapid development of technology has presented challenges that artists could not have anticipated because as far as we know collaboration with AI towards next fast AI era is one of the important topic for digital artists for at least 8 years. However, I believe that artists, industries, and policymakers have a responsibility to adapt and protect creative works[1]. Just as the Impressionists adapted to the technological advancements of their time, artists today need to navigate the complexities of the digital age, including the creation and minting of NFTs[2][3]. This is not a new phenomenon, as artists have always had to adapt to new technologies and mediums. For example, the popular culture in Japan, including manga and anime, has been deeply influenced by the technological advancements and has significantly contributed to the country's cultural and economic discourse[4].
[1]: Margoni, T., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). A Deeper Look into the EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions: Harmonisation, Data Ownership, and the Future of Technology. Retrieved from lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/20.5
[2]: "Impressionism." Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressio
[3]: "Non-fungible token." Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungi
[4]: "Popular Culture and Workplace Gendering Among Variety of Capitalism: Manga Representations in Japan" [Full Text](eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/78699/1/Popula)
5. Laws and enforcement:
Your argument that existing laws are sufficient disregards the need for adapting legal frameworks to address the specific challenges posed by emerging technologies. While copyright laws provide a foundation, their application to new technologies like generative AI requires careful consideration. By clarifying and updating legislation, along with proactive enforcement measures, we can establish an environment that supports innovation while protecting the rights of artists. Ethical practices should be promoted alongside legal frameworks to encourage responsible technological advancements that benefit both creators and society. The advent of photography, for instance, posed new challenges for copyright law, which led to legal amendments to protect the rights of photographers4. Similarly, the rise of the internet necessitated changes in copyright law to address issues related to digital content5. Today, we face similar challenges with the advent of AI and NFTs, and it's crucial that our legal frameworks evolve to address these new realities6. I agree that companies should not rely on exploitative practices and that they need to improve their products to comply with existing laws.
[1]: Brettell, R. R. (1986). Modern Art 1851-1929: Capitalism and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2]: Paul, C. (2008). Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
[3]: Boucher, B. (2021). How Do NFTs Work and Why Are They Suddenly Everywhere? Retrieved from artnews.com/art-news/news/
[4]: Hannavy, J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography. New York: Routledge.
[5]: Litman, J. (2001). Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books.
[6]: Margoni, T., & Perry, M. (2020). Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation. Stanford Technology Law Review.
In conclusion, I appreciate your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree with many of your assertions. It is crucial to navigate the complexities of technological advancements while upholding ethical principles and safeguarding artists' rights. By embracing responsible practices, engaging in constructive dialogue, and leveraging innovative tools, we can strike a balance that allows for technological advancement while respecting the integrity of the artistic process.
Overall, I share your concerns about the current state of generative AI technology and its impact on artists. I believe that we need to navigate these challenges carefully, uphold ethical principles, and safeguard artists' rights. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion and I look forward to continuing this important conversation.
Thank you for your continued engagement on this topic. I hope this response addresses your concerns more comprehensively and encourages further meaningful discussions.
Sincerely,
Dr. Yoichi Ochiaiツイートを翻訳
引用ツイート
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Karla Ortiz
@kortizart
Hello Mr. Ochiai,
Thank you for your thoughts. Below is my response. A bit lengthy, but these issues are worth the length. Perhaps this could’ve been our discussion on @ntvnewszero? twitter.com/ochyai/status/…
このスレッドを表示
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="391" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="427" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="409" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="387" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)