#Intellectual Property

[fromthemouthofkings]

I'm fascinated to hear both sides of the ai art = plagiarism debate because as a librarian, intellectual property rights are a professional interest of mine, but I'm also kind of baffled that most of the takes I see from both sides of the issue largely focus on the degree to which ai uses pre-existing material as the basis for the question of whether or not ai images plagiarize sources. Because ultimately, everything creative is inspired by and 'stealing from' and transforming the art that came before it—read Jonathan Lethem's The Exctacy of Influence! Read Steal Like an Artist!

To my eyes, the sticking point is not that ai uses pre-existing material, but that it doesn't cite its sources. Even if an ai artist acknowledges they used an ai tool to create an image, there is no transparency from the ai tool's creator about what databases they scraped from to develop it. I'd say some ai tools are even designed so as to obscure the sources they're pulling from and to pass their work off to the user as something wholly original. Which is, you know. The actual definition of plagiarism.

[cbrownjc]

Hi! So let me add on a bit more to this:

So, yes, in perpetuity means that AMC will own the rights to all the books in the Vampire Chronicles and Mayfair Witches series until the end of time. A while ago, I did some research looking into things to verify that the rights were sold as such (which, yes, is a pretty rare thing when selling a studio the rights to a book); you can read all about that deal and my thoughts about it all here.

Now, yes, theoretically, that means AMC could sell the rights to another studio when they are "done" with them (meaning not going to adapt them anymore).

But, quite frankly, I don't expect that to ever happen.

See, even before the rise of so much IP-driven content, the value of a studio was always measured by what IPs they owned the rights to. Even if it is just a license of those rights. AMC owning all the rights to the Vampire Chronicles and Mayfair Witches gives AMC, as not just a network, but a midsize studio, value.

And as I say in the link above, it looks like AMC paid out a LOT of money to outright own the VC and MW IPs. By producing high-quality content for those properties, they increase the value of those IPs and for themselves as a network/studio. (Something I think they have accomplished much better with IWTV and the VC than with MW, but that's a whole other discussion.)

So I would never say AMC is "stuck" with the rights forever. If AMC didn't want to have the rights forever, they wouldn't have paid what it looks like they did for them. This is an IP they saw a value in outright owning. And producing content for it not only ups that value, but it also copyrights things that are exclusive to the AMC-adapted version of the story.

And that will be true even when the copyright for the books begins to enter the public domain in 2072. (The year the IWTV book goes into the Public Domain). Anything exclusive to the AMC version of the Vampire Chronicles TV show -- which, yes, means things like the songs that were written for the show by Daniel Hart, as well as these specific versions of Louis, Claudia, Lestat, Armand, Daniel, etc. -- will be, and probably already have been, copyrighted to AMC and AMC alone.

Let me put it this way to explain it even more: there is a reason that the Wicked movie doesn't have Dorothy in red ruby slippers, but silver ones. Because in the original Wizard of Oz books, which are now public domain, Dorothy's shoes were silver. MGM, the studio that made the classic film, changed the color of Dorothy's shoes to ruby red.

MGM owned the copyright to the ruby slippers because they were the ones who came up with the idea and used it. And when Warner Bros studios acquired the pre-1986 film and TV library of MGM back in 1996, they acquired all the copyrights related to the 1939 Wizard of Oz film, which, yes, includes those for the ruby slippers.

If Universal had wanted to use the ruby red slippers in Wicked, they would have had to pay Warner Bros. a hefty sum of money for the license to do so. Something that would have added to the cost of the two films, and something I'm betting Universal didn't see as cost-effective in the long run to do so. (And yes, I know about the red light that shines on the shoes in Act 2, but that is in no way the same thing, and I'm sure Universal checked at the time to make sure WB couldn't sue them over it.)

So in 2072, other studios can try and start adapting the IWTV book (and only that first book BTW) into whatever they might like to try to. Kind of how we got two Great Gatsby musicals the minute that book's copyright entered the public domain.

But anything unique and specific to the AMC TV show version will remain copyrighted to AMC until the 2120s (maybe even longer).

So, that too, all said: AMC could very well bring in a new show runner once Rolin decides he's done. But, as @nalyra-dreaming said above, the main show is already cherry picking things from books like Merrick (such as Claudia's diaries and Louis' suicide attempt) to integrate into the show. So even if books like Blackword Farm and Pandora don't get full adaptations, they'll probably draw and take what they want from those books and put them in the show.

What I think shows like Talamansca show is that what AMC wants to do with the VC property will be similar to what they've done with The Walking Dead property -- spin-off shows dedicated to a specific group or story within Anne Rice's world. Things she only hinted at or gave a broad overview of.

Remember the Night Island spinoff that was announced, but then hasn't been talked about since? Originally, it was supposed to be an animated show, in the vein of Slippin' Jimmy. However, Slippin' Jimmy wasn't very well received, and I'm hoping that the silence about Night Island means that AMC quietly canceled that idea and is planning something like a live-action mini-series for Night Island instead.

So yeah. Books that AMC doesn't adapt into full seasons will probably have the most important parts of them taken and integrated into the IWTV show. And, if not, there is no stopping AMC from doing some spin-off mini series' with other writers at the helm of them (though it will all still be produced by Mark Johnson, I'm sure -- since he's the producer for MW and Talamansca along with IWTV).

But selling the rights to another studio? No way. Right now, it is way more valuable for AMC to have the rights than not, especially given the large amount of money they spent on them. And I just don't see that changing unless something big happens, like AMC going bankrupt or something like that.

Does buying rights in perpetuity mean that AMC can still sell it to another network once they're done adapting all books or are they stuck with them forever? They bought 18 books but since Rolin is clearly not doing them all, is it possible that when they finish Iwtv, say in 10-15 years they could do an adaptation of Pandora with a new showrunner and new actors? Or Blackwood Farm with a different actor playing Lestat. Are there any time constraints that they need to be concerned with or do they basically have forever to do what they want?

AMC having bought the rights in perpetuity means they have them now - and they do not have to pay license fees for the IP as for other shows (for example Moonhaven iirc). Here is a post by @cbrownjc on that, which I recommend reading. And, maybe even more importantly, her addition to my post here.

IF they wanted to get rid of them they could sell them - but that would most likely always be with significant loss.

And yes, they could decide to do different adaptions with different actors, theoretically... but they know very well that they hit gold with this cast - I don't see them change anything there in the near future.

In a few decades that could be very different... yes.

But... I am not so sure that Rolin - or the others - is not taking from Blackwood Farm or Pandora.

After all the origins of the Talamasca are, ultimately, from Pandora. The Talamasca and Mayfair Witches do feature heavily in Blackwood Farm (and Lestat's few tidbits there could also prove important for the show). He is also not doing a "Merrick-season" ... but Claudia's diary and Louis' suicide attempt are from that book. You know?

They are free to use the books as they see fit.

As long as they have the rights :)

I think, at the end, they - and we - will have an extensive "immortal universe", built more or less on all the books.

And I'd personally love that, because Anne's universe is vast and full of possibilities :)

[prokopetz]

It's true that there's no practicable way to frame "style theft" as an intellectual property issue that wouldn't have horrifying consequences for independent artist, but that doesn't mean we can't have sympathy for all the artists who've spent their lives perfecting the craft of drawing moist-lipped, glassy-eyed, vaguely oily-looking anime girls in three-quarter profile and now everybody thinks they're a robot.

[feminist-space]

A Company Reminder for Everyone to Talk Nicely About the Giant Plagiarism Machine

by Amanda Bachman

"Hey team. It’s your CEO. I know your time is valuable, so I’ll cut right to the chase: It’s come to my attention that some of you have been bad-mouthing the Giant Plagiarism Machine™.

I’d like to remind you that our company policy is pro–Plagiarism Machine™. We��re a tech-forward, future-oriented company that doesn’t shy away from the promise of new innovation—even if that innovation is a Giant Plagiarism Machine™ that copy-pastes existing innovation into fake sentient sentences.

Lately, it feels like some of you aren’t the techno-optimists I took you to be. You’ve been heard uttering slurs like “I’m worried about my job stability” and “I just don’t think it’s positive for humankind,” neither of which sounds remotely optimistic or techno. I’ve even heard shocking reports of teams failing to incorporate plagiarism into their processes, because—I can’t believe I have to repeat this—“it’s not helpful.”

Team, hear me when I say that this is harassment, and it must end. Put yourself in your coworker’s shoes—say, a coworker with really nice, designer footwear, who has invested their personal fortune into the Giant Plagiarism Machine™, along with other intellectual-property-theft futures. Imagine how that coworker (could be anyone!) might feel working alongside such Negative Nancies.

Folks, that’s just not who we are. This is and has always been a company of risk-takers who are unafraid to move fast and break things. Or at least, that’s what I thought, until a bunch of you started bringing up the many merits of proceeding cautiously and keeping things unbroken.

It just really comes as a shock that such accomplished intellectuals, who’ve spent their entire careers pushing the upper bounds of human achievement, could be judgy about a machine that runs the entirety of human imagination through a shredder and glues together what comes out.

I guess I understand. I, too, was once a little skeptical of the Giant Plagiarism Machine™. But that was before I attended The Conference for Big Boy Business Owners™. Here, I learned that my fellow titans of industry have been re-orging to “leverage plagiarism” and “minimize thought-waste.”

It was at that very same conference that I learned critical thinking takes up 20 percent, sometimes 30 percent, of company time. It’s clear to me that some of you are not focused on the profit potential of outsourcing all of our thinking to a machine capable of remixing thoughts that have come before.

And sure, most of you are hired for your intellectual capabilities. But you don’t need to worry about losing your jobs to the Giant Plagiarism Machine™. As I always say, people are more powerful than plagiarism. (At least until the next economic downturn, during which I will quietly decide that, hey, maybe plagiarism was the dark horse all along.)

The way I see it, we’re family. It really does disappoint me that so many brilliant colleagues—whose genuine breakthroughs I’ve profited from for years—would be so quick to condemn this newer, stupider way that I and others like me can make money off your life’s work, through stealing.

So as we move forward, I want to hear a real turnaround in attitudes, troops!

Because, at the end of the day, you don’t really have a choice."

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[maxwellatoms]

In one of your last answers, you said “series reboots are usually pretty gross and sad”, and I was wondering if you could expand on that? Assuming “reboot” covers any kind of continuation of a currently cancelled or finished show (and maybe that’s the wrong assumption!), from the outside looking in it feels like a pretty mixed bag. On one hand, if I love XYZ Show, it’s cool that I get more stories with these characters and another chance to support XYZ Show and its creators. On the other, it definitely feels like a lot of ideas can only get funding if they’re tied to something already, meaning creatives are having to now tie whatever cool idea they have to some reboot/relaunch/retread, which can feel pretty disheartening if you don’t want to do a reboot/relaunch/retread. Is that a similar feeling from your side of the industry?

Thank you so much for all your answers and insight!

Usually reboots and spin-offs are just cash grabs. It happens a lot in animation. In fact, I would argue that the entire industry is just one big cash grab now. In the 80s, everyone complained that cartoons were just half-hour commercials for toys. And they were right. And we're right back there, but now that you can't legally push toys all day, it's just general "IP". Mugs, posters, more spinoffs, whatever.

I was offered three show running gigs over the pandemic. All reboots that I would consider unwise to pursue because they were "of a different time" and didn't (in my opinion) have anything more to say. Two of them were properties created by notorious sex pests, so there's also that. The animation industry loves to prop up its sex pests.

I turned all of them down, partially because I didn't respect the original creators but also because none of them had anything going for them except just being "more of the same".

I don't think any of those projects survived the intervening years, so in retrospect I maybe should've taken the job. I'd probably feel a bit gross, but at least I'd have floors in my house.

The entertainment industry is in a bad spot. The whole thing. I've had I don't know how many pitch meetings in the last few years, and they all start the same way:

"Hey! Before we start, we just want to let you know that we're not actively producing anything right now. We think maybe soon, but we won't be picking anything up today..."

And then later:

"The little we are doing is IP, so if you have a new take on our IP or a new IP you're connected to that you can bring in, that'd be great."

I always wanted to make original stuff. There came a time when I'd had my fill of Billy & Mandy and wanted to do something else new and original. That never manifested, and I was constantly being offered IP to produce. I turned too many of those down, maybe, before deciding that it was probably better that I run the IPs that mean something to me rather than having some hack do it.

But now those jobs have all gone to celebrities and fallen live-action writers, who are also slowly being eaten by the system. WB was hot for Scooby stuff a few years back, so I pitched some ideas. A few of them were turned down for being "off-brand" in a variety of ways. WB has now made (I think) all of those off-brand shows (or something close) with celebrity show runners.

I was going through a whole Midlife Impostor Syndrome thing recently where I was wondering if maybe I don't just suck. Like, it's weird that for a couple of decades I'd have people calling me trying to get me to run shows, and now nobody will call me back about the possibility of a design job.

Talking to some friends and realizing that they were in a similar situation helped me feel like I wasn't alone. That was nice. Talking to some of the most talented colleagues in my industry made me made me realize that those people weren't getting jobs either. That was unnerving. Talking to complete strangers in other parts of the entertainment industry now has me thinking that the whole house of cards is coming down. That's real concerning, yo.

It's hard not to think it's purposeful, when deranged billionaires own the entirety of our media and want to shape a society where they can't be criticized. We're letting wealthy tech bros firebomb the very heart of our culture, and it's weird that no one is talking about it. Because (for now) we still have that capability.

[novella-november]

I have no idea why this needs to be said, but you can hate generative AI, love the Public Domain, love media preservation, hate the overbearing US Copyright system, and... still believe that Copyright Laws exist in the first place for a reason, (even if, thanks to Big Corporation Monopolies, it's been twisted into its current behemoth monstrosity.)

You can hate Large Language Models and still believe in Copyright Reform over Copyright Abolishment.

You can believe in Media Preservation and still believe that Plagiarism is wrong.

You can hate the current restrictive Copyright Laws without wanting to abolish them entirely.

You can love the Public Domain and still loath predatory corporations stealing everything they can get their hands on, to literally *feed the machine.*

These things are not mutually exclusive, and if you think that

"you can't hate AI if you hate the current copyright laws"

or that

"Hating on Generative AI will only give us more restrictive copyright and IP laws, therefore you need to normalize and accept generative AI stealing all of your creations and every single thing you've ever said on the internet!"

I just genuinely don't understand how you can say this kind of crap if you've ever interacted with any creative person in your life.

I'm a wanna-be-author.

I want as many people to be able to afford my written works as possible without restrictions, and I fully plan on having free ebooks of my works available for those who can't afford to buy them.

*That does *not* mean I, in any way shape or form, would ever consent to people stealing my work and uploading it into a Large Language Model and telling it to spit out fifty unauthorized sequels that are then sold for cash profit!*

You cannot support generative AI and turn around and try to claim you're actually just defending small time artists, and *also* you think no one should have any legal protections at all protecting their work from plagiarism at all.

Supporting unethical generative AI (which is literally all of them currently), protecting artists, and *completely abolishing* copyright and intellectual property laws instead of reforming them *are* mutually exclusive concepts.

You *cannot* worship the plagiarism machine, claim to care about small artists, and then say that those same small artists should have absolutely *zero* legal protections to stop their work being plagiarized.

The only way AI could even begin to approach being ethical would be if using it to begin with wasn't a huge hazard to the enviornment, and if it was trained *exclusively * on Public Domain works that had to be checked and confirmed by multiple real human beings before it was put into the training data.

And oh, would you look at that?

Every single AI model is currently just sucking up the entire fucking goddamn internet and everything ever posted on it and everything ever downloaded from it with no way to really truly opt out of it or even just to know if your work has been fed to the machine until an entire page of text from your book pops out when it generates text from someone's writing prompt.

And no, it's not just "privileged Western authors" who are being exploited by AI.

For an updating list of global legal cases again AI tech giants, see this link here to stay up to date as cases develop:

[impulsivedecisionsat3am]

THE TIME HAS COME

i finally finished the parx blinkies!!

this took me like one and a half weeks? mainly cause i forgot that entertainment existed SORRY

(low quality ones below the cut)

(no i cannot control the fact that geoff’s hair and other stuff are blinking. it’s a computer thing, not something i did on purpose lol)

[otto-wood]

Happy Anniversary, Intellectual Property! April 14, 2023

[lackadaisycats]

Hello, I recently remembered the polish fireworks (or something similar?) that used your art on the product.

Now that Lackadaisy has expanded to a different medium and reached a bigger audience, would it be legally troubling to have random fireworks with your intellectual property on it floating around?

Maybe they stopped using your artwork and the problem has already solved itself, I was just curious.

Oh. Yeah. It was actually a US based company in Texas that was printing my art on fireworks packaging. I contacted them about the copyright infringement years back. They blamed their manufacturer overseas, but said they'd put a stop to it. Still, every July someone reaches out with some photos from a fireworks pop-up tent, having spotted some of my art therein. I suspect it's just old inventory the sellers are still fishing out of a warehouse somewhere, though, because it's always the same art on the packaging.

It would be troubling if it happened anew without proper license, yes, since that's a form of theft and a sort of loss of agency for me as the creator/IP owner to determine how my work is represented. Even if someone made an attempt to license Lackadaisy for such a thing, I'd probably decline. I'm not morally objected to people enjoying fireworks responsibly, and I guess you could say they're thematically on brand, but knowing what my pets and other people's pets go through every year due to the noise...ehh. I don't want traumatizing non-fictional animals to be part of my business model.

[pilotduty]

☆

[prokopetz]

I love it when an RPG really, really wants to have a beholder in it, but since beholders are one of the very few iconic Dungeons & Dragons monsters that are actually original to Dungeons & Dragons and thus not public domain, they're not allowed to call it that. The writers all sweating as they make sure to have some random bystander say the critter's totally-not-"beholder" name out loud every single time it appears so that it's 100% clear that no trademarks have been infringed.

[moonmothjpg]

⸸ L I K E A R I T U A L ⸸

[incognitopolls]

"Other purposes" such as training generative AI, printing on t-shirts, etc.

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[venonomnomicon]

Fire Emblem lyn starts 1 tile further to the left on the prologue now

Hi everyone. I hear what you've all said about AI art and its laziness, lack of imagination, etc. And I've decided I agree. I now believe there is, fundamentally, an intrinsic difference within the mechanisms of copyright that seperates human-made and AI-made art. To prove it, here is my magnum opus ROM hack for Fire Emblem 7 (USA)

While I absolutely did not put more effort into this than the average prompt engineer, I do believe that by infusing it with my Human Soul, Sacred Artistic Intent, and Divine Feminine Energy, it elevates it beyond anything that any neural network could ever spit out. This holy energy will serve as my shield, protecting me from any potential lawsuits etc for copyright infringement as Nintendo will surely respect my artistic intent and the spirit I have imbued within this project.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Download the .ips patch file here

Acquire a .gba ROM file for the USA / Australia release of Fire Emblem 7. As fellow copyright / artistic integrity enthusiasts, I trust you will all respect the original artists and acquire this ROM file through the use of a real purchased copy of the game that you use a physical USB based cart reader to extract onto your PC. I recommend GBxCart RW for this.

Download LunarIPS or any similar ROM patcher.

Using LunarIPS, apply the patch file to the ROM.

Enjoy the power of human artistic expression!