• ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.comEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      That’s pretty much how it works? Either someone pays specifically for an artist’s work, or someone might buy it and donate it, or maybe the artist has an exhibition…

      The, post is talking about AI involuntarily taking the collective work of the net and then charging a fee to regurgitate it.

      The difference is choice and free will

    • Carrot@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      This is such a bad take. Museums pay for the art they show. If they don’t, it’s because it was donated or on loan. The living artists are compensated, or were happy to give/loan to a museum. The dead artist’s art was bought, donated by the artist’s family, or loaned. In the cases that the art was looted or stolen back during colonial times, most normal humans want those pieces returned to the rightful owners, because it’s theft.

      • _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.socialEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        Museums [rob] for the art they [steal]

        Dead people can’t claim copyright, living artists have to sue arms and legs to take their works off museums. Museums are open colonizers’ economic laundering.

        • Carrot@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          5 days ago

          Museums have a ton of stolen artwork in them, that’s why I brought it up, but modern acquisitions are typically legitimate (in the sense that someone was paid for making art and the museums have the right to display it). Dead people can’t claim copyright, but their living family members can, at least for 70 years after their death. If a living artist sold a piece, and it gets put into a museum, they no longer have a say as to what is done with that art, since they typically sell the rights along with the painting. I know that most at purchases/donations to museums are corporate money laundering, but art really isn’t being stolen by museums at large anymore, and the general public has a problem with the artwork in museums that is stolen.