Would it be fair to implement a system that pays a small percentage to artists and creatives every time their work is used in a derivative work by AI?

History: the inventor of paper cup holders became a millionaire from the accumulation of fractions of a cent profits from billions of hot drinks sold worldwide.

However, in recent years, tech companies have used vast amounts of data produced by individuals to train large AI models without a concent - https://x.com/zemotion/status/1800959538381848927. In the New York Times v. OpenAI case, Microsoft intervened to defend OpenAI and protect their investment, raising questions about the kind of justice individual artists can expect when even large media publications are threatened. To promote the use of AI systems and generate revenue, some companies have developed systems that mimic the voices of celebrities, such as Scarlett Johansson, reminiscent of the movie "HER." - meaning that even if you are a celebrity you are not consulted prior to public release of such system.

OpenAI is now paying publishers like TIME to access their data. Google has also made a deal to use Reddit's data. Similarly, Meta has changed its terms to use anything you've posted or will post.

Despite the clear value of user-generated content, as shown by these paid agreements, there are no deals to pay end users who create high-quality content.

Is the regular content that users generate on the internet high quality? User base and user-generated content is the only asset Reddit has, and the company is paid for granting access to it. Although Reddit doesn't pay its users for their content in retrospect.

svenai Team