How do the actions of the prompter differ from the actions of someone who commissions an artist to create a work of art?

Ah, but there is a fundamental difference there. A photographer takes a picture, they do not tell the camera to take a picture for them.

It is the difference between speech and action.

Because it wasn’t created by a human being.

If I ask an artist to create a work, the artist owns authorship of that work, no matter how long I spent discussing the particulars of the work with them. Hours? Days? Months? Doesn’t matter. They may choose to share or reassign some or all of the rights that go with that, but initial authorship resides with them. Why should that change if that discussion is happening not with an artist, but with an AI?

The only change is that, not being a human being, an AI cannot hold copyright. Which means a work created by an AI is not copyrightable. The prompter owns the prompt, not the final result.

So what you’re saying is that the AI is the artist, not the prompter. The AI is performing the labor of creating the work, at the request of the prompter, like the hypothetical art student you mentioned did, and the prompter is not the creator any more than I would be if I kindly asked an art student to paint me a picture.

In which case, the AI is the thing that gets the authorial credit, not the prompter. And since AI is not a person, anything it authors cannot be subjected to copyright, just like when that monkey took a selfie.

Yo dawg…

Oh, I’m definitely not saying that there had to be intention behind it. After all, it’s a consequence I never thought of, so I’m sure whoever made that decision at Spotify never did either. But then, they’re supposed to be paid to think of consequences like this.

I guess the question is, if a decision screws disabled people in the pursuit of more money, does it really matter if the disabled people were deliberately targeted, or if they’re just collateral damage?

I don’t know. If we were talking about Netflix making captions a premium feature that requires an extra fee, I’d think that’s pretty skeevy and ableist. I hadn’t thought about lyric sheets being an accommodation until OP brought it up, but now that they did, I’m kind of putting it in the same bucket.

Sure, but if that’s causing a difference in access for people with a disability like OP, then that becomes an ADA issue.

Because it improves the experience, but isn’t vital to it. If you want the free tier to be accessible to everyone, limiting things like lyrics that people like OP use as a disability accommodation isn’t the way to do it.

Album art would make way more sense as a paid feature than lyrics, considering it’s a largely cosmetic improvement.

They’re complaining that one of the things the limited free plan takes away is something they were using to accommodate their disability.

I killed my Spotify account when they started shoveling millions of dollars at Joe Rogan, and everything they’ve done since then only confirms I made the right call.

I have Dorco Prime blades that come in that kind of packaging. It was $11 for a pack of 100.

ONE OF US

ONE OF US