- Summary: The
- The claim states that giant companies could jeopardize the position of creative workers if they need permission from copyright holders to train AI models.
- If permission of the copyright holder is required, the large company can have the creator enter into an agreement to transfer model study rights.
- As a result, opportunities for individuals to express themselves using AI tools may be limited and the market may be monopolized by a few giant companies.
Rebuttal:.
While this argument emphasizes the negative effects of large corporations monopolizing the rights of creative workers and dominating the market, appropriate revision and regulation of copyright laws could maintain a balance between the use of AI technology and protection of creatorsâ rights.
For example, clear guidelines and restrictions on the use of model learning rights can prevent companies from abusing the rights.
In addition, advances in AI technology may promote new creativity and innovation, contributing to the growth of the creative industries as a whole.
- The key phrase is "[[bargaining power]]."
- This is [[Michael Porter]].
- If we introduce a new "right to use for AI training", it will become a new "tradable good".
- We need the rights!" and people who say that assume that everyone will choose "not to sell the rights" or "not to let them be used for learning" when the rights are created, but this is doubtful!
- Because the individual creators do not make any profit from the rights they hold, it is more profitable for them to sell them in the short term.
- In contrast, Getty has an incentive to buy because it can generate a profit from it.
- Buyers are few and sellers are many, so the bargaining power of buyers ([[bargaining power]]) is strong
- If the buyer says, "I'll buy it if it comes with the right to learn, otherwise I won't buy it," the seller is more likely to choose the "sell" option, which provides cash in the short term.