O my goodness Brian 
I accidentally clicked on this topicā¦ needed to clicked on your post and oh my oh myā¦
listened twice and itās going to happen again, but laughed out loudā¦ together her 
I hope they get their t-shirt/merch in order then Iāll sponsor them againā¦ hilarious 
Greetings 
thanks
so do you care whether an artist earns money for their art at all? I think you might be surprised how many people produce art on the side (any kind of art - visual, music, etc) yet have other employment that primarily pays the bills.
I feel strongly that if someone produces art that others consume, that they should be properly compensated for it. My wife is a veterinarian who has written a total of 3 songs. 2 have been recorded professionally and 1 has been properly mastered. None has been submitted to any streaming services or radio stations or anything, but sheās working up to that and that will happen. Local radio first. She has been paid for a couple of live performances. She has taken all the steps necessary to secure her intellectual property rights for her songs so that when they get played, she gets properly attributed and paid.
Since that pay is going to be tiny, is it any less worthwhile? I donāt consider it any more or less important than someone whose entire livelihood is their art. But itās very important. If there is no prospect for artists to be paid for their art and they can only pursue it as a casual hobby, do you think there will be nearly as much great art as their is now? If people canāt dedicate their lives to honing and perfecting their craft, how many people would just get sucked into a soul-sucking 9-5 and not make any art at all? That would be a sad, sad world indeed.
Iām not even talking about it from a music industry perspective with the big bucks. Iām talking about the small artists who do just enough to get by and are generally happy with that. From a musicianās standpoint, Iām talking about the local musicians who do small gigs close to home so their only travel expenses are gas money and maybe a meal or two. They probably have one or more part time jobs to fill in the gaps, but writing music and performing it is what they do. These are the people that really get hurt when streamers pay less per stream, when AI āmusicā crowds out human-generated music for streams, when small venues cut back on hosting live music, and when music consumers get accustomed to consuming music for free.
Not really, no.
Most artists create because it is fulfilling, often bringing them pleasure when it is shared with others.
Most artists are not remunerated for their effort. In fact, they pay good money for the privilege (e.g. all of us who share our songs here in avoyp)
Some people try to monetise their art, and if they are able to come up with a sustainable business model and are successful, Iām very happy for them, from the superstars to the niche performers. I donāt believe they have a ārightā to be paid for anything, unless someone wants to pay them.
Please donāt get me wrong. I love music. I love watching folk dedicate their lives to things they believe in. I support my favourite small bands financially, as well as offering services like food and accommodation, as well as organising gigs.
I asked AI to give me a summary of āThe Burning Hellāsā politics:
[mod edit - AI generated content, including references to politics, removed]
In this case AI saved me some time by knowing what I was about to click on. 
Hehe, you and your bot-friend are sailing dangerously close to one of the Trinity of Taboo-topics, Dude!
My pachyderm skin serves me well, and I do not wish to break even more rules than I have in the past.
I do admire bold lettering in highlights, but will limit any responses to private messages regarding this 
Just a show case for how AI tools may be useful for folks. The same could be done with manual searching and parsing large numbers of links.
EDIT: The formatting was straight from Gemini, not me.
I was under impression that AI generated text in posts is not allowed in this forum. @Richard_close2u, is this correct Richard?
Quoting AI generated content is definitely not welcome, especially if it is used to share political comment and / or designed to stir up division and conflict.
Both instances, plus the āpopcornā meme have been deleted.
This topic is now reopen.
This topic has also contributed to the on-going discussion about our thoughts on AI focused topics in the Community.
Nor me.
Partly because I have no interest in what money other people make, but also because money is not the point. Art is.
I remember someone asking āwhat is the difference between art and design?ā They were told ādesign is when you have a customerā.
Thereās a related question about whether art should be paid for, by society (tax payers), patronage, or donation. Iām probably in favour of something like that if it results in a richer life for us all. Who wouldnāt be?
Anywayā¦
The point Iāve been circling is that most artists, musicians and writers Iāve come into contact with (through art school, the Liverpool music scene, and writerās forums) are far more interested in the act of creation (or performance) than they are wealth creation. They donāt mind the money, but theyāll carry on even in its absence.
Some of my songs have been bootlegged dozens of times on Liverpool or new wave compilation CDs. I got nothing for that. I may well have some funds in the PRS because of the BBC playing my stuff, but I donāt care. I gave my paintings away to friends who liked them. My renders of Regency era menswear were copied from my blog and used hundreds of times to illustrate other peopleās websites. I was amused.
On the other hand, while I have made money from painting, printing, design, music and writing, it was never the reason for wanting to do any of those things. Iām not an outlier in this respect.
So when people claim that an AI system has āconsumedā or ācopiedā their material and therefore they deserve more money, I am dubious on several counts.
First, I think they are misapplying a self-serving framework to a mechanisation of an age-old process of artistic influence and inspiration, for which funds were never forthcoming.
Second, the concept of copyright was intended to protect publishers, not artists, and is a double-edged sword, notoriously channelling money away from successful creators and towards those with a tenuous prior claim.
Third, if we were really concerned about the plight of artists we would be trying to tear down the publishing industries who take all but about 2% of the revenue generated by artists, and we wouldnāt be content to use streaming and similar online services that effectively do the same thing, while pretending to allow artists to self publish. The fact is that most artists are actually paying to get attention and effectively impoverishing each other, dog-eat-dog style, while competing for a tiny slice of a pie whose size is being set quite arbitrarily by the controllers of platforms.
Iād really love to see the lives of creative people made a bit less of a struggle, but waving pitchforks at the AI bogeyman is not going to do that.
Great post. Iāve been thinking the same thing.
If we start saying that artists should be financially compensated for āartistic influence and inspirationā then we will owe Chuck Berry an awful lot of money.
Itās very rare that an internet post shifts my (or anyoneās, I suspect) opinion, but I think this one has a bit. I doubt Iāll ever be a fan of AI generated music or art, but nevertheless I can see Markās point here regarding the revenues.