I like Art created by others. While I like creating art, I don’t want to stifle or negate inspiration for others.
Artists use colors, and chords. Colors and Chords are inspiring, change brain patterns. What is and is not a derivative work gets convoluted. I don’t want to capitalize on non-ideal ground, try to prevent others from using parts of the spectrum does not equate to others might not. Claiming ideal ground established or delivered seems less than ideal.
There is art in the world. Much of it is nice. The combination gets equated to there is sufficient art, there might not be more art if the process were less jading and more freeing.
Off stage is useful. Knowing how much to be offstage is not a guarantee. Desire to profit more does not equate to desire for others to profit less, yet in practicality it doesn’t seem to always amplify that way.
Many great teachers with many great lessons. Spend all time learning from only one? Time gets divided between lessons might get set to time is divided ideally. People do not always know when to stop listening to one lecture and go listen to another. Momentum and buy in does not always lead to less momentum and buy in.
Imagine you release some art, and a supercomputer or AI creates a derivative work and back dates the timestamp a month. Different enough that it is hard to contest, the world is complex enough that who got there first is hard to contest. Artists likely to have legal capacity to challenge iffed timestamps?
In a world with tablets, computers, and digital canvases, have to be finished before the derivative works start? 8 billion+ people in the world, claim something similar hasn’t been created before with far less than sufficient capacity to prove and verify?
Artists want to be inspirational or not have derivative works? Claim to be able to have both ideally? Fans with reduced capacity to be artists or teachers is less than ideal. Practicality and Experience factors into less desire to quote at times. Corporations not required to quote while students are? Seems a little less than ideal. Time costs and limited experience are more useful for some than others?
If someone uses Shakespeare, are they required to quote Shakespeare? If someone takes a picture of a man, are they required to save derivative of Statue of David?
If someone uses my words I want them to be required to quote me? No. I also don’t want to be robbed of all resources and left on the street. In combination there is potential for less than ideals. I used “to” and “for” in some of my sentences, please quote every time you use, thank you. 2 and 4? No quotations? Establishing non ideal requirements might lead to less message throughput.
8 billion people now, that is allot of sentences spoken and written everyday. 16 billion people in the future, make the ground hard for them to converse on? Less than ideal requirements factor into increased time costs, time costs that might be required to stop oppression, stop racism and antisemitism. Add in many many trillions of CPU cycles that create combinations of words. Before anyone uses a quote, require them to make sure nobody else in history said it before?
I could publish a document with all combinations of words in English language for 4 words potentially, then require all people to quote that document every four words?
If I was being falsely accused of something, might I want a prosecutor to be required to quote every four words, factor in all legalistic time costs for being unfairly legalistic with me? I and others give grace by not publishing a list like that, expect same level of grace in return?
Snares and legalism reduces art throughput, yet we have a tendency to turn it up via tax dollars.
Free Starter Image
counter argument increased legalism and gotchas, reduced peace signs is valuable
Not a big fan of the counter argument
We reinforce less than ideal systems in less-than-ideal ways and that factors into less-than-ideal conditions (like reduced peace signs).
I made future generations require to state they created a derivative work for 1000 years compounding time costs exponentially, or I gave them reduced burdens and lift. That looks like a Jason Davis 2024 Peace Sign, sorry wanted to give you an A for promoting peace but going to have to give you an F.
Art has potential to get people in trouble at times. People might declare ideal ground established based on a guise of trying to protect others at times. If a politician wanted to get rid of an artist they might attach their artwork to less desirable systems in society like crime. Might just reduce throughput by limiting documents like this one. Windmills might look close to nazi swatstikas, and sun rays might look close to rising sun flags, people give representations to numbers like 6 and 7 – not meant that way has potential for turned up that way. They used 3 hexagons in their painting, are they trying to say 666?
There are new groups including terrorists groups around the world that have flags and symbols, does not equate to they have to convey what those flags and symbols look like. Just by an artist choosing colors they might be flagged as suspect. Red and Yellow just colors, no extra cost to that? I want people of China blessed, I don’t want to promote more or reinforce oppression there that we have over the centuries potentially by borrowing, and I want to be able to use colors and paint without being labeled as a potential threat? Yes.
Some Angel Motorcycle Art I created a while back
Free Starter Image
Pro Motorcycle Helmets and Pro Christian Art might be set to less?
Think it might go with these
Free Starter Images
My Tech Blog 