Weird spot. $3 per minute seems like a lot more than most AI companies are willing to pay, and a lot less than most creators who are not making slop would be willing to take.
Suckers who don’t properly value their time is why BigCo generally wins.
That then takes away your next video. So you got paid a low ball amount only to be ripped off.
Because it restricts you from creating such style videos. Your being paid a pittance for a bot to learn your style.
Why wouldn't you want more money?
Because that style isn't that unique, so the difference is between getting paid nothing and now there is a bot that can do the same thing, or getting paid something and now there is a bot that can do the same thing.
It hasn't even been established that they're required to pay you at all.
Style is how teachers make learning happen. If teachers follow the general generic book mundaneness, you learn far less than of you apply your own style.
Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.
"You're unique, just like everybody else."
It doesn't matter if the thing is using your exact style or one which is enough of a substitute for it that the difference isn't going to make up the difference between your $50 fee and the $0.01 in electricity it takes to have the AI do it.
> Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.
On what basis? How is it different than someone teaching their students your style, so the students can make their own original works in the same style? It's directly analogous to classroom use, which is an explicit example of fair use from the copyright statute.
This just shows that anyone is willing to cloned for less than their actual worth which is calculated on their own basis.
If you'd rather be ripped off, having a class taught for $5 from some AI bot from your own teaching style earning a single $3 than yourself teaching and earning $5 from each class, be my guest.
Edit: I'm now post capped, so can't comment/reply on HN for another four hours anyway. Old news.
So now we're speculating on the cost of something that doesn't exist yet, but it's highly likely that hardware is going to get more power efficient over time, so the question then isn't whether "AI can do this for a lower price than humans" will happen, it's just a question of how long before it does.
Even if that were not true, releasing the rights for so little is dumb.
As some of us like to say, "Fuck it, we'll do it live." As in, that's the only take you get and it goes right to production zero editing and processing. Everything gets set once, fired once, and it gets uploaded immediately.
You shoot it "live" and let the AI deal with the editing and processing for you.
It takes an hour to produce 1 minute of scripted content and fancy graphics for a professional YouTube show.
$3 per minute would be a pretty high price to pay for "man walks outside" video.
They do not want theatrical productions, they want raw footage of the real world.