• Zarxrax
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    My takeaway from the article is that these “costs” are what it would have cost to actually license the use of a celebrity for every random ai social media post.

    Basically the same copyright math they have been using for years, where every pirated copy of something is a loss of the full msrp.

    • Pycorax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I don’t think you can compare it the same way though. For one, you’re comparing the marketing departments of companies versus the average consumer. The decision making process is different and the product is different. For piracy, we’re looking a a copy of a piece of work meant to be sold to the masses whereas this is a brand new commissioned piece of work for a specific purpose.

      Add in the fact that the licensing of consumer media makes it so that you never actually own that piece of media. Whereas in this case, in most scenarios, the company who purchased the celebrity’s likeness for the production of this work gets to use that work forever.

      There’s also the fact that using someone’s likeness without consent is a whole other can of worms.

    • lyralycan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m pretty sure that, if you take any one medium, if every single person who downloaded a pirated copy had to instead acquire it legally:

      • a non-zero amount would’ve not bothered;
      • a significant portion would’ve bought it on sale;
      • a significant portion would’ve bought it from a reseller.

      Antipiracy arguments have always been fraught with erroneous speculation.

    • cheese_greater
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Its the same way Onanism is killing a theoretical baby