Yikes! are they scraping IUOMA?

[Zack]

this is a debate worth paying attention to. i wonder if the time has come to keep mail art in the mail and off the web... what do you think? 

https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/?utm_campaign=mb&utm_medi...

[Mail Art News]

I will scraping this discussion for ideas for an upcoming 2nd blog post on mail art and AI. 

https://mailartnews.blogspot.com/

[Zack]

Martha: thanks for your contributions here; i like (and agree with) a lot of what you've written.

i'm sorry you feel that way about approval of comments - it's a feature of the site that i rarely use (almost exclusively to delete duplicate comments from the same commenter). i enjoy healthy debate but, sadly, have heard of occasional nastiness on the site, so i take advantage of the feature on the off chance that i might encounter abuse.

like you, i so appreciate IUOMA and all of Ruud's hard work.

lastly, so sorry to hear about the imminent end of the post in the UK! and while i'm all for evolution, email art ≠ mail art, imho.

cheers, and hope to see you in the mail (before it disappears!). thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

[Mail Art Martha]

Another relevant point. Snail mail as we know it may be going on its deathbed, if our UK postal 'services' have their way.  It is a commercial enterprise not a public service anymore. Our right wing government sold it. Prices go up frequently, postoffices disappear and so do post boxes. I see the internet as our only hope of survival, wether we like it or not. The organism that does not evolve dies.

[Mail Art Martha]

By the way this approval of comments is distasteful to me. It smack of repression.

[Mail Art Martha]

I try not to think about art and do something creative instead. Wether it is art or not is a matter of opinion, and philosophy. I feel cosy within the framework set by IUOMA, so a huge thanks to Ruud. Long live IUOMA!

Carien, WAGACA sounds like caca! Very good. Ha ha!

To be serious for once I see A1 as another tool for the artist. (There is a human brain behind it)

[Zack]

Carien: good idea!

Mark: thanks for this article. such interesting tension resulting from different visions of the topics at hand. two kinds of optimism: 

DDG [Deep Dream Generator founder] Kaloyan Chernev: 'I am convinced AI-generated content has the potential to not only enhance the work of artists and designers, but also to enable the creation of entirely new forms of art and expression.'

illustrator Anoosha Seyd: 'In response to AI, we might even see a reemergence and appreciation of traditional media.'

[Carien van Hest]

Maybe we should AI rename in WGACA (what goes around comes around).

[Heide Monster]

When I send my handmade MA to another artist, it is theirs to do whatever. Implicit in the mail art ethos is this free gifting. But I never intended to give it to random corporations nor their databanks just because some helpful soul posts it on social media. The idea gives me the shivers.

I'd be flattered if it resonates in someone's brain and they use it as a jumping off point, or even add to it. However there is  a difference in using something in a collage or other art and selling  multiple versions of it. 

 I wonder if the time has come to mark all outgoing art with copy write notice.  copyright is an “automatic right.” Copyright automatically protects your work from the moment it is fixed in a tangible form.

[Zack]

Heide: unauthorized is a very interesting word to be using in this context, as the very notion of authorship (which underlies the concept of 'authorization') is pulled into question by the generative AI technologies. whose art is it anyway? is the internet just one big free-for-all?

Mark: yes! pointing to the of the respected (nay, cherished!) art historical 'traditions' of collage and re/appropriation can both help and complicate the current situation; perhaps today's AI scraping is just the next order of magnitude of Dada and Pop 'redeployment' experimentation, and as such, equally suspect / transgressive / easily dismissed as derivative?

i must admit there's something ominous (to me, at any rate) about the 'anonymous' and lack-of-intention activity of generative AI, something that threatens to undo the role of humans as creators. a real conundrum that's hard to wrap my mind around. glad that others are grappling with these issues, especially in a legal copyright context. 

[Heide Monster]

I thought that perhaps he meant to protect images from being scraped by AI. My understanding is that the lawsuit was to protect images from unauthorized reuse.