Nowadays the suspicion that everyone uses AI for creative work is so strong and omnipresent that soon every artist and writer will be forced to reveal their work process step by step or else their authorship will be denied.
I wrote a short response saying that this type of caution is normal. Patents and real estate deeds have similar requirements for step by step work process. Good scientific articles are even more explicit about sources, data and methods. High value antiques and collectibles are accompanied by a detailed provenance.
Thinking more about the question … those cautions are divided into two distinct categories.
= = = = =
Science and history:
Sherry Olson’s books on medieval England include fine-grained details of her sources and her work process in translating and judging the sources. Scientific articles have highly specific requirements for background reading, data, methods, and vested interests.
These details are NOT meant to be judged or punished by courts. These are guild standards to be judged by other historians and scientists. We don’t need to worry about guild judgment unless we’re members or applicants to the guilds. When we’re just writing for practice and exercise, as I’m doing here, the provenance doesn’t matter.
= = = = =
Patents, copyrights, antiques:
When a thief damages or steals a physical object like a house or car, his action is visible and his theft causes visible changes in the property itself. When a thief steals text or images, the original object is untouched. The text or image hasn’t been taken or broken or used up by the theft.
Laws punish visible theft or damage, proved by visible evidence. A text or image that isn’t published FOR MONEY can’t be protected by laws. Copyrights and patents are NOT MEANT to protect abstract authorship. Copyrights and patents prevent thefts of MONEY, not thefts of abstraction. A copyright gives the publisher an exclusive privilege to sell copies FOR MONEY. A patent gives the manufacturer an exclusive privilege to sell copies FOR MONEY.
Where does Altman fit in this pattern? Clearly a copyright thief, at least for published and valued works. Like all Wall Street criminals, Altman plays the securitization game. Wall Street chops up a company into shares, mixes and bakes the shares into ETFs and Options and Indexes and Derivatives and a thousand even more convoluted layers, then chops up the ETFs and other shit into more shares.
Securitizing insures that the buyer can’t tell which companies are failing or which bonds are unpayable. Altman securitizes IP so you can’t tell which parts are copyrighted.
= = = = =
Example of the types: If I stole Steinbeck’s original manuscript for Cannery Row and sold it, I’d be an ordinary thief, punishable by ordinary laws. No copyright, no guild. If I copied out the chapter on Mack’s frog expedition and tried to SELL it as my own work, I’d be an IP thief, punishable by copyright law. If I use Steinbeck’s insights in my own work without crediting him, I’d be violating guild standards. Incidentally, his copyrights are valuable enough to provoke endless lawsuits among his heirs and publishers, partially resolved by a partial victory for Penguin Books.
Polistra's Mill 