Teletubby 138,581 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 Grimes declared that she is of the belief that art shouldn't be owned by anyone, not even the creator. Her comments come after she created her own AI song generator software, Elf.Tech, and asked fans to create songs using the tech as long as she gets 50 per cent of the royalties. She insists that if artists allow their voices to be used in AI projects, "beautiful things might come from it". Grimes said: "Copyright sucks. I don't think art belongs to anyone. "Why shouldn't everyone be able to use your voice or whatever? Like it just seems cool and exciting and then beautiful things might come from it, when people like big artists do these writing camps, they search the world for the best people to come in and write and they spend all this money doing it, and it's like you could just not spend that money and just give your voice out to the public. And like, you'd be drawing from a much wider pool, you know, like the outcome the net outcomes of great art would be." source Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
INNA 3,557 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 Her desire to be contrarian has all but ruined her career I feel like she’s permanently mentally delayed herself with drugs. Nothing from her makes sense. fragment-fragment--bul-uh...scab-uh..fragment-foot, bullet fragment foot bich! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RahrahWitch 6,977 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 What a monumentally stupid thing to say, Copyright protects Artists. Saying everyone should just give up ownership to their own creations because it's "cool and exciting" is just dumb. Without copyright most artists wouldn't be able to survive and probably not even want to share their art with the world in fear of having it stolen and used without their consent, Much like the AI corporations she's so fond of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Cowboy 11,670 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 Well in a sense she is kinda correct, once the artist delivers the product to the world, it no longer belongs to them really but to the public in a way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedTeeth 1,750 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 "...art shouldn't be owned by anyone, not even the creator." "—as long as she gets 50 per cent of the royalties." Now hold on now. LG7我们真的来喽(゜▽゜)🎉 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babel 41,249 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 She still wants 50% profit from her art so her comment is 50% stupid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galvon 1,857 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 3 hours ago, Space Cowboy said: Well in a sense she is kinda correct, once the artist delivers the product to the world, it no longer belongs to them really but to the public in a way. No, the public can simple just enjoy someones art by looking at it or listening to it. That doesn't give them ownership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSine 6,129 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 What...? 💜🩷🩵 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsomniaMonster69 3,086 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 33 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said: Well in a sense she is kinda correct, once the artist delivers the product to the world, it no longer belongs to them really but to the public in a way. So you really think that Jason Derulo should've made money whit the song Imogen Heap wrote, whitout paying anything for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oriane 19,972 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 Wasn't she into that NFT sh*t? You popped my heart seams, all my bubble dreams Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charmz 3,917 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 She is honestly the most cringe person. Of course artists should own their art, and if the artist decides to sell their art, then they should be able to. If an artist enters into an agreement with a record label (for example) and the agreement states that the record label owns X% of the earnings, then that’s how it works. she’s coming from a place of the most insane white girl privilege and should never comment on social economic issues that will never ever hurt her prosperity and well being. Her baby daddy is the richest man in the world, she has an enormous fan base for her music, and she likes to dress in social justice warrior drag online because it makes her feel superior. Always & Forever, 🧚🏻♂️🦉CHARMZ🦉🧚🏻♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JazzGa 14,530 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 Truly spoken like a women who never has and never will worry about having enough money My old cat is a tough man, but i cant deny the way he bites my hand and he stabs me, he grabs me by my heart <3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Cowboy 11,670 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 42 minutes ago, Galvon said: No, the public can simple just enjoy someones art by looking at it or listening to it. That doesn't give them ownship. Who is the product delivered to once the artist completes creation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Cowboy 11,670 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 33 minutes ago, InsomniaMonster69 said: So you really think that Jason Derulo should've made money whit the song Imogen Heap wrote, whitout paying anything for it? That's silly. In no way did I imply that, sorry that was your automatic thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumzy3000 6,989 Posted June 7, 2023 Share Posted June 7, 2023 She is really starting to annoy me trolly troll troll Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.