Consent to use and modify your work is not in any way comparable to consent related to bodily autonomy/sexual assault. Tying these two ideas together is ridiculous.
Can you point out where in the comic she ties those two ideas together? Because one of those ideas is only implied and you’re telling on yourself by getting upset at the implication.
It’s really telling that the people who are crawling out of the woodwork to brag about how much they hate Pizzacake don’t seem to know the difference between consent and sexual assault.
Who said I don’t like pizzacake? Normally I think her comics are funny. I just think this popular narrative that you’re violating someone’s consent by using their art is totally idiotic. You can’t own ideas, sorry. That’s a highly authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class to justify violence against us, and I think it should be rejected even when it’s not used explicitly in that context.
Consent is important when it comes to bodily autonomy. That’s why we talk about consent. If you’re demanding consent in situations that don’t involve you, that’s the behavior of a control freak.
The only thing idiotic here is that art=idea and therefore no art can be stolen. To prove this, go take some art from your nearest museum. I’ll wait.
But tell me more about how stealing someone’s art for use by AI is an authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class, and how the idea that all art is up for grabs by anyone so it’s totally okay to use it for AI is not the idea from the capitalist class. This is the kind of explanation that deserves some popcorn.
This is literally you wouldn’t download a car level logic. Stealing a physical object is not the same as creating a copy of something digital and then using that. When you deprive someone of something that obviously affects them. Creating a copy does not do this. The artist continues to have their copies to use as they wish.
I have taken photos of art in museums and strangely I was not arrested. Perhaps because that’s common sense?
Copying is not stealing. It’s insane that this anti-AI moral panic has gotten so severe that it’s infecting and degrading other strongly held and logical positions people on the left have had for literal centuries. Hopefully this will pass soon.
These laws and norms against copying and using IP only exist for rights holders to extract economic rents from ordinary people for doing normal things like copying and modifying art. People did this for thousands perhaps millions of years without restrictions until capitalism came along.
AI companies want art to be up for grabs but they also want to own the products of it. You can object to the first part if you want to preserve capitalist IP norms, or you can object to the second part if you want to overturn them. I know where I stand. Do you?
So you’re pretending you didn’t say all art are ideas so therefore they can’t be stolen now that you’ve realized how silly of a statement that was. But now you’ve moved on to other silly statements.
Scraping art for AI usage is not merely making copies. You would need to be woefully ignorant of how LLMs, AI companies, and people have been scraping work for AI usage for the past 5 years to believe that it’s tantamount to taking a photo of a painting and not used any further.
The laws and norms of copyright usage have not been properly applied to AI scraping at all either. You’re just referring to a poor understanding of copyright history as if that will magically making scraping all art, content, and IP be the justifiable thing to do, while ignoring who all are behind doing such a thing in the first place. You’re arguing that what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Twitter, and Microsoft are doing is actually anti-capitalist practice by stealing all content they can, while also saying they’re not stealing because art are ideas and therefore all art is up for grabs.
You should take a step back and realize you’ve sided with the capitalist companies against an independent creator here in order to suggest that it’s the artist who’s wrong and the big capitalist and it’s the big trillion-dollar companies that are correct and anti-capitalist.
I’m not pretending anything. All art does consist of ideas. Some also consists of a physical aspect and that physical aspect can be stolen. The intellectual, or idea part cannot be.
You’re the one who tried to move the goalposts to physical media with your museum analogy. So I modified that to make it as close to this situation as possible but still contain the same concepts–making a copy, and then, yes, using it however I wish after the fact. I didn’t spell that out because I thought the point was obvious but sure we can go there too.
I can take my photographs of paintings and put them into AI training data if I want to. The museum is not going to hunt me down for this because again, it obviously harms no one.
But let me make my own analogy here. If I broke into PizzaCake’s house and stole a physical print of this comic, are you asserting that’s the same as me downloading a copy of it here? Let’s say I use them the same way after the fact, for AI or whatever harmless use you find most offensive.
The entire AI industry stands on top of the IP house of cards you are defending far more fundamentally than any need to access data for free. If they were forced to follow copyright law, sure, their training data might get a bit worse, it might cost them a bit more but fundamentally they would continue to do the same things. In contrast, if they didn’t have a monopoly on the product of that training, there would be no profit model for them whatsoever. And you are defending that foundation here, no matter what you may think.
But she didn’t write the title, OP did. She doesn’t post her comics with titles. And there’s absolutely nothing in the comic itself that even hints at anything about sexual assault etc.
It’s realy fucking funny how all you’ve managed to do is tell on yourself about your immense ignorance and idiocy.
I can’t believe we’re debating this. The subtext is so obvious. I can’t tell if you people have the reading ability of a literal child or if you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you don’t want to or what?
But what exactly am I telling on here? I think sexual assault is bad and IP laws are bad. That’s no secret.
Why does it matter if it’s implied vs stated? The message is clear nonetheless. How is that telling on myself? Your comment is incoherent, so I had to ignore that part to make any sense of it.
I am telling on myself that I’ve seen the harms of laws and norms around IP and the harms around sexual assault. Do you think I should be ashamed of that for some reason?
Shouldn’t people who imply made up crimes like copyright infringement are the same as rape feel shame? That’s what I think.
Consent to use and modify your work is absolutely not needed. Feel free to take my work, modify it, and be sure not to ask consent. My name is LibertyLizard, and I eat used diapers. What I do is not in any way comparable to consent related to bodily autonomy/sexual assault. Tying these two ideas together are seperate, but both very required. Otherwise it’s totally fine to falsely claim somebody eats used diapers while quoting someone. Which is fine. I’m LibertyLizard, and I approve this message!
Yeah, there is a reason that Weird Al, while not required by law, still gets permission from artists before using their work. If he didn’t get permission, nobody would accuse him of rape, but consent is still important.
I generally agree with their politics, but even I understand that if parody is scathing and meant to be oppositional or ridiculing then nobody expects consent.
So he’s a bad guy because he wrote a joke you didn’t like?
Honestly, it’s fine to dislike jokes. But he doesn’t make political content and doesn’t really perform anymore. He’s semi-retired and I find him to be a nonissue.
You’re lashing out with zero emotional control. All I’ve said so far is that I hope someone else improves in their art form. I’m unswayed by hyperbole or tantrums. Try to take a breath before responding, take some time touching grass and try to self-regulate.
There’s a reason why it’s not required even under the extremely restrictive copyright law of the USA. All art is derived from the work of its predecessors. Parody does not and should not require anyone’s permission to make.
Because one is extremely harmful and traumatic and one isn’t? Do you seriously think these two actions are in the same moral universe as one another?
If you don’t want people using your art don’t put it out in public. Once you do so, the public should be free to use it as they wish and doing so does not harm you in the slightest.
I noticed you didn’t seek my consent before making this comment. Why do you only think consent matters some of the time?
Literally everyone thinks consent only matters some of the time. If you want to have a real discussion about this, come back when you have an actually coherent point to make.
![Scrapist [PizzaCake]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/9ac42d45-d20f-4c72-ac94-1269c5dd363d.png){kind=link}
Consent to use and modify your work is not in any way comparable to consent related to bodily autonomy/sexual assault. Tying these two ideas together is ridiculous.
Can you point out where in the comic she ties those two ideas together? Because one of those ideas is only implied and you’re telling on yourself by getting upset at the implication.
It’s really telling that the people who are crawling out of the woodwork to brag about how much they hate Pizzacake don’t seem to know the difference between consent and sexual assault.
Who said I don’t like pizzacake? Normally I think her comics are funny. I just think this popular narrative that you’re violating someone’s consent by using their art is totally idiotic. You can’t own ideas, sorry. That’s a highly authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class to justify violence against us, and I think it should be rejected even when it’s not used explicitly in that context.
Consent is important when it comes to bodily autonomy. That’s why we talk about consent. If you’re demanding consent in situations that don’t involve you, that’s the behavior of a control freak.
The only thing idiotic here is that art=idea and therefore no art can be stolen. To prove this, go take some art from your nearest museum. I’ll wait.
But tell me more about how stealing someone’s art for use by AI is an authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class, and how the idea that all art is up for grabs by anyone so it’s totally okay to use it for AI is not the idea from the capitalist class. This is the kind of explanation that deserves some popcorn.
This is literally you wouldn’t download a car level logic. Stealing a physical object is not the same as creating a copy of something digital and then using that. When you deprive someone of something that obviously affects them. Creating a copy does not do this. The artist continues to have their copies to use as they wish.
I have taken photos of art in museums and strangely I was not arrested. Perhaps because that’s common sense?
Copying is not stealing. It’s insane that this anti-AI moral panic has gotten so severe that it’s infecting and degrading other strongly held and logical positions people on the left have had for literal centuries. Hopefully this will pass soon.
These laws and norms against copying and using IP only exist for rights holders to extract economic rents from ordinary people for doing normal things like copying and modifying art. People did this for thousands perhaps millions of years without restrictions until capitalism came along.
AI companies want art to be up for grabs but they also want to own the products of it. You can object to the first part if you want to preserve capitalist IP norms, or you can object to the second part if you want to overturn them. I know where I stand. Do you?
So you’re pretending you didn’t say all art are ideas so therefore they can’t be stolen now that you’ve realized how silly of a statement that was. But now you’ve moved on to other silly statements.
Scraping art for AI usage is not merely making copies. You would need to be woefully ignorant of how LLMs, AI companies, and people have been scraping work for AI usage for the past 5 years to believe that it’s tantamount to taking a photo of a painting and not used any further.
The laws and norms of copyright usage have not been properly applied to AI scraping at all either. You’re just referring to a poor understanding of copyright history as if that will magically making scraping all art, content, and IP be the justifiable thing to do, while ignoring who all are behind doing such a thing in the first place. You’re arguing that what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Twitter, and Microsoft are doing is actually anti-capitalist practice by stealing all content they can, while also saying they’re not stealing because art are ideas and therefore all art is up for grabs.
You should take a step back and realize you’ve sided with the capitalist companies against an independent creator here in order to suggest that it’s the artist who’s wrong and the big capitalist and it’s the big trillion-dollar companies that are correct and anti-capitalist.
I’m not pretending anything. All art does consist of ideas. Some also consists of a physical aspect and that physical aspect can be stolen. The intellectual, or idea part cannot be.
You’re the one who tried to move the goalposts to physical media with your museum analogy. So I modified that to make it as close to this situation as possible but still contain the same concepts–making a copy, and then, yes, using it however I wish after the fact. I didn’t spell that out because I thought the point was obvious but sure we can go there too.
I can take my photographs of paintings and put them into AI training data if I want to. The museum is not going to hunt me down for this because again, it obviously harms no one.
But let me make my own analogy here. If I broke into PizzaCake’s house and stole a physical print of this comic, are you asserting that’s the same as me downloading a copy of it here? Let’s say I use them the same way after the fact, for AI or whatever harmless use you find most offensive.
The entire AI industry stands on top of the IP house of cards you are defending far more fundamentally than any need to access data for free. If they were forced to follow copyright law, sure, their training data might get a bit worse, it might cost them a bit more but fundamentally they would continue to do the same things. In contrast, if they didn’t have a monopoly on the product of that training, there would be no profit model for them whatsoever. And you are defending that foundation here, no matter what you may think.
If you can’t understand subtext I’m not going to be able to teach you that skill. But it’s very obvious to those with media literacy.
The title is “scrapist” which I can’t even type without it being autocorrected to rapist. Come the fuck on. You can’t possibly be this ignorant.
But she didn’t write the title, OP did. She doesn’t post her comics with titles. And there’s absolutely nothing in the comic itself that even hints at anything about sexual assault etc.
It’s realy fucking funny how all you’ve managed to do is tell on yourself about your immense ignorance and idiocy.
OP chose the title with the subtext in mind.
I can’t believe we’re debating this. The subtext is so obvious. I can’t tell if you people have the reading ability of a literal child or if you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you don’t want to or what?
But what exactly am I telling on here? I think sexual assault is bad and IP laws are bad. That’s no secret.
Yeah, that’s what I said. You’re still telling on yourself.
Why does it matter if it’s implied vs stated? The message is clear nonetheless. How is that telling on myself? Your comment is incoherent, so I had to ignore that part to make any sense of it.
I am telling on myself that I’ve seen the harms of laws and norms around IP and the harms around sexual assault. Do you think I should be ashamed of that for some reason?
Shouldn’t people who imply made up crimes like copyright infringement are the same as rape feel shame? That’s what I think.
Yeah, there is a reason that Weird Al, while not required by law, still gets permission from artists before using their work. If he didn’t get permission, nobody would accuse him of rape, but consent is still important.
I generally agree with their politics, but even I understand that if parody is scathing and meant to be oppositional or ridiculing then nobody expects consent.
It reminds me of that Dane Cook joke about gamers using the word rape too much. I hope the author will contribute better commentary on this issue in the future.
Dane Cook is a fucking psychopath so that’s not the best comparison to make.
What did Dane do?
https://youtu.be/BIO1BPfAu1s?is=oAp96EK1Etq279rM
I made the judgement myself when I happened to catch his act on TV and the whole thing was just brutally mocking people who cry.
So he’s a bad guy because he wrote a joke you didn’t like?
Honestly, it’s fine to dislike jokes. But he doesn’t make political content and doesn’t really perform anymore. He’s semi-retired and I find him to be a nonissue.
Edit. link the actual joke you coward!
Oh for fuck’s sake. Is that the best you can do? Get outta here with this nonsense.
You’re lashing out with zero emotional control. All I’ve said so far is that I hope someone else improves in their art form. I’m unswayed by hyperbole or tantrums. Try to take a breath before responding, take some time touching grass and try to self-regulate.
What is that reason? Go on, explain.
There’s a reason why it’s not required even under the extremely restrictive copyright law of the USA. All art is derived from the work of its predecessors. Parody does not and should not require anyone’s permission to make.
Why is it ridiculous?
Because one is extremely harmful and traumatic and one isn’t? Do you seriously think these two actions are in the same moral universe as one another?
If you don’t want people using your art don’t put it out in public. Once you do so, the public should be free to use it as they wish and doing so does not harm you in the slightest.
Why do you think consent only matters some of the time?
Should you need consent before recording the police committing a crime?
Should you need consent to cite/copy someone’s work in order to critique it?
Should you need consent before quitting your job?
Not everything needs consent and in fact, the entire concept of requesting consent flies in the face of our rights in many scenarios.
There’s a whole lot of people—in power—that would love it if everything required consent.
Consent is a complicated topic that should not be talked about like it is all black and white.
I noticed you didn’t seek my consent before making this comment. Why do you only think consent matters some of the time?
Literally everyone thinks consent only matters some of the time. If you want to have a real discussion about this, come back when you have an actually coherent point to make.