Raw LLM Responses

SORRY LONG COMMENT - (I am an instant fan and just wanted to get out the gushing and then chime in on the videos topic , one of the biggest questions i have at the moment) THANK YOU GUSH - there is so much I love about you and your content - for the biggest and most refreshing thing is how niche your content is , however its so broadly applicable and helping (im sure of it)so many people. most creatives no matter what field struggle with business, legal , marketing , admin stuff when they want to make the leap to monetizing their work. I can personally tell you, I've had to wear 500 hats at one time, particularly when i launched 2 labels to begin publishing my work and the work of those that wanted to expand. even with our boutique microlabel - metadata , isrcs, contracts, publishing, distribution, MY-GAAWD, I just wanted to DJ . But my personality allowed me to - because im a crossmedium artist and i just looked at it like knowledge and expanding my expertise. however , it WAS NOT EASY or QUICK and i was young enough to stay up late nights, work 18 hour days researching, iterating and networking. - i would give my right thumb in order to have found someone like you then. the NO BS and straight up delivery of these complex topics is a major bonus - (particularly cause, again creatives are just repelled by all this, makes a lot of thier heads spin usually) . but not only that , but a Musician who happens to be a Lawyer who happens to be rising and practicing in this new era. - REFRESHING, NEEDED and a god send. im in that gray area- I do Marketing, design, graphic, editing, cinematography, copy -writing, producing, on and on - since way back when i smelled this coming (with trends i've been blessed to see it coming) i HAVE ALWAYS known, "oh boy, when the lines start to blur and that money starts to be made this is going to get really convoluted" so im glad you're sharing your expertise and time to help . GUSH OVER 🫶 ON THE VIDEO TOPIC AND MY OPINION: - AS FAR as the nature of the video- (recently) i've been overhauling , and getting ready to do an anthology of my past works, and mostly (because of AI) i've been inspired to put out a whole new collection of expanded media and ideas and projects i've never been able to - mainly because of 3 things that were factors - BUDGET, SKILL SET or TIME restraints. well, thank you AI. i am creating so much more. so much faster ,so much cheaper and so much more of more LOL. But in my gestation period of learning WHAT i can accomplish , and its been a ride for sure, I am now starting to see what i can do with all these blooming skills and avenues of expression to monitise , publish and share my work with these new enhancements - i have never released a n animated film for example - or written a sonnet , or built an desktop app etc etc. this brings up so many questions (and honestly after the breakdown of that copyright notice you shared) many many more. HAHA. This entirely feels like that whole derivative works claims process, on covers. I mean - the greyest of the grey in all of this is the TOOL ARGUMENT - i make graphic works using photoshop, illustrator and a handful of other softwares, I use melodyne , logic, for music (and like 5000 other things, when you count plugins.) same goes for websites, or even when i was doing my music column and writing , most times id say i'm at the helm using my brain , and augmenting its computing capabilities to make whatever art im doing, most times i go back and refine anyhow. thats the real magic with AI - it does what i cant do because im not superhuman and cant output as fast as it can. without years of trainign or practice in whatever field/skillset/etc its really interesting. because - in essence the AI is trained on HUMAN INPUT ANYHOW - where is it getting all the knowledge to draw, sing, paint, edit, in all these styles, and aesthetics and even referencing major artists, whole genre/art movements even generational influences - so is generating a Rembrandt or a michael jackson esque song all on the AI- (lets just say ) cutting out the user or prompt engineer - throwing copyright law out the window? cause its a Micmick of whatever ? I suppose knockoffs of any medium are protected. so why not my knockoff of whatever . and thats at its most extreme - where im purposely trying to do an altered exact version of "something:" like deepfakes etc. I would even say - when you start mixing and matching platforms it gets even more hairy - Some examples , maybe you can help me understand (and Im DEF going to be calling your office for legal advice BEST BET! ) Examples: --- If i take a photo 📸of a painting I made 🖼and then ask one llm to interpret the image as a poem ✒then take the poem and write a song around it using another ai 🎼and then take the song and have a video created 🎥 combining all of these elements using AI. where who and what is protected i could say well all of it is me, but then you could also say well - the buck stops at the poem - cause it was the first iteration to be a derivative work but wholy created by the AI - buuuuut - i told it to do that , based on a copy of a real life work's interpretation in the form of a peom revisited into a song which spawned a video piece - so is it a tool or is it a fully generated thing? Another example if i create something IN photoshop using the AI gen - i guess that alone cant be copy written, but then i take the image (lets say a "photoreal chimpanzee" ) all i have to do is slap a pink birthday hat (and to make it even more lazy, a pink triangle shape and yellow dot on top) on it and i'm good to go? what about music - Ok i have suno write something i use minimal input and just keep it to a text to output - but then take the entire piece and just whisper "nmm hmmm hmm" at the very end of the generated output - and claim that , am i good on that too? I Believe ill always be pro-human when it comes to creation - and I love the idea of check and balances in place (like having to acknowledge AI enhancement or utilization if a work is published) but like as a mandatory liner note or credit line in spotify for example. but VAGUE , BROAD and really , to protect the artists technique and creative process as protected as possible when they choose to publish or share their work publicly vs what i've seen (and even on this channel when you covered how a platform wanted co-crediting on thier TOS) about co-crediting AI -- that's like adobe asking for credit on a photo that was edited in lightroom , or even more drastic example- it would be like Logic asking to have co-credit on a song because i used the software - or whatever the case may be - isn't AI just a computing language anyhow - its a TOOL no matter if its generative, text , reasoning, or whatever and all the different models are just plugins or interfaces of the same technology : AI. the worst tho - how do we deal with remixing , or reprompting or offshoots of public posts : taking one prompt or output from another person and doing all setting 100% identical) whereas the result from the work is completely different cause of the randomness of how outputs are (even at a super hyper fixated elaborate setup) you get what you get and then refine - , or yea let me put a smiley face sticker over the pocket of an AI generated image of a man in a suit ,and say "whelp dis mine now"- where the original user clearly did their fair research of formatted, expert level and cohesive descriptive prompt engineering *Which by the way , if your prompt engineering with such vivid and descriptive , organized and formatted structure , isnt it akin to a blend poetry and creative writing anyhow?? at that point isn't it considered a skill or skillset , does that not count ? the prompt and there for the output (derivative) should be considered? - BUUUUUT the second user had preferences , or inputs by way of a style guide or look book, or model that was trained - like in midjouney and the personal style codes. isnt THAT person curating output by inputting his influence beyond simple text. does his new version become a derivative work ? for me - the crediting or (acknowledgements ) holds more value when generated art is used for journalistic purposes - i believe its less important for artists to have to be all transparent and granular with thier process of expression And tool sets, inspiration etc etc vs the use of an image gen to supplement a report in a newspaper article, even more so if the article is political or scientific or on a real person. or a science report based on output from an llm - isn't the paper guided by the user - although i suppose a weight ratio could be a solution - how much of the final input was created using ai vs just the human . certain percentage will require to disclose - -OR the a more blanket solution -require a new metadata field like digital watermarks for AI - across all digital medium. ------------------------------------------------------- if we were to remove the AI element from all these examples and just look at them in a vacuum how much different would the conversation go. SO SORRY to take up so much space but im TRULY invested in knowing what the general consensus is - BTW I BOUT NEARLY spit my coffee all over the screen when i heard what Universal and their conglomerate a**es had to say, LOL oversimplifying much? THANK YOUAGAIN - sincerely a fan. When are the live chats?