I think you're missing one important aspect of generative AI used by indie filmmakers and VFX artists as an enabler. To use these generative models legally, you need training data that is not subject to copyright issues. This is something big studios have. They possess the rights to train these models using their vast libraries of movies and stock footage. Small studios wont be able to use any of these in house models commercially.
There are still a lot of unanswered legal issues for sure. You raise a good point. While current legal actions seek to address legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and fair compensation...if they succeed, might that paradoxically strengthen the position of major studios and tech giants? If the lawsuits severely restrict access to training data for openly available AI models, then only entities with vast libraries of pre-cleared content (typically large studios) would be able to develop and have access to AI art generation tools.
@@amulet-studios I think this is probably what drove Runway to strike a deal with a big studio. There's certainly a limit to how much they can extend their models legally by scraping the web for Creative Commons videos. By doing this, they can future-proof their business. These models will only get as good as the training data. What will likely happen is that companies collaborating with big studios will sell their models for commercial use (trough subscription or by royalty), which you can license from them.
Many of my friends are out of work at DreamWorks, Pixar, and no longer getting Disney contracts renewed. With this kind of news it's understandably unsettling for the industry.
There’s absolutely nothing about the behavior I’ve seen from and experienced with (sometimes personally and professionally) tech companies that leaves me feeling hopeful or optimistic. Studios will ALWAYS look for ways to cut costs, especially with how volatile the market has become anong theater goers. This technology is improving quite rapidly. Anyone underestimating its capabilities down the road does so at their peril.
It's my hope that this technology can help shift the balance of power and enable smaller studios/teams to create at the level of the big studios. I'm not so much optimistic about how big studios will use this, but more optimistic about how independent studios can use this to level the playing field.
@@amulet-studios Until the people start electing leaders who will actually get tough with regulations on the tech sector this will not come to pass. Failure to regulate competitive industries ALWAYS favors the big fish who will do everything possible to devour the little fish, if not merely pull off their fins and flippers.
This is total bullshit news until they tell what purpose have the models. Just another AI hype message who don’t know anything about generative AI. And it’s not your fault but ai company producing hype on an unseen level
![Wiz Khalifa - Khalifa's Home [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnrLCTe0Nz4/mqdefault.jpg)
I think you're missing one important aspect of generative AI used by indie filmmakers and VFX artists as an enabler. To use these generative models legally, you need training data that is not subject to copyright issues. This is something big studios have. They possess the rights to train these models using their vast libraries of movies and stock footage. Small studios wont be able to use any of these in house models commercially.
There are still a lot of unanswered legal issues for sure. You raise a good point. While current legal actions seek to address legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and fair compensation...if they succeed, might that paradoxically strengthen the position of major studios and tech giants? If the lawsuits severely restrict access to training data for openly available AI models, then only entities with vast libraries of pre-cleared content (typically large studios) would be able to develop and have access to AI art generation tools.
@@amulet-studios I think this is probably what drove Runway to strike a deal with a big studio. There's certainly a limit to how much they can extend their models legally by scraping the web for Creative Commons videos. By doing this, they can future-proof their business. These models will only get as good as the training data. What will likely happen is that companies collaborating with big studios will sell their models for commercial use (trough subscription or by royalty), which you can license from them.
Many of my friends are out of work at DreamWorks, Pixar, and no longer getting Disney contracts renewed. With this kind of news it's understandably unsettling for the industry.
There’s absolutely nothing about the behavior I’ve seen from and experienced with (sometimes personally and professionally) tech companies that leaves me feeling hopeful or optimistic. Studios will ALWAYS look for ways to cut costs, especially with how volatile the market has become anong theater goers.
This technology is improving quite rapidly. Anyone underestimating its capabilities down the road does so at their peril.
It's my hope that this technology can help shift the balance of power and enable smaller studios/teams to create at the level of the big studios. I'm not so much optimistic about how big studios will use this, but more optimistic about how independent studios can use this to level the playing field.
@@amulet-studios Until the people start electing leaders who will actually get tough with regulations on the tech sector this will not come to pass. Failure to regulate competitive industries ALWAYS favors the big fish who will do everything possible to devour the little fish, if not merely pull off their fins and flippers.
This is total bullshit news until they tell what purpose have the models. Just another AI hype message who don’t know anything about generative AI. And it’s not your fault but ai company producing hype on an unseen level