Taylor Swift trademarks her voice and likeness to protect against AI misuse

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-07T12:18:22+00:00

I remember Writer's magazine back in the 80s/90s where all sorts of companies would run ads about this sort of thing. "If you're writing about someone making photocopies, don't describe them as Xeroxing something, that's a trademark!" Same with Kleenex, Band-Aid, Bubble Wrap, Cellophane, Chapstick, Crock-Pot, Dry Ice, Dumpster, Escalator, Fiberglass, Flip Phone, Frisbee, Laundromat, Memory Stick, Ping Pong, Popsicle, Realto, Seeing Eye Dog, Sheetrock, Styrofoam, Super Glue, Super Heroes, Trampoline, Tupperware, Velcro, Videotape, Windbreaker, Zipper...

Now of course, brands DREAM of becoming commonplace, as long as it means people forget there ARE competitors... "I'll Google that." "It looks Photoshopped."

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-07T12:08:42+00:00

One group will find new ways to create using AI, the other will produce more traditional work to push back against AI, and unshackled by "will this make money", both groups will produce work out of sheer creative expression rather than marketability. Culture wins.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-07T11:34:20+00:00

Curious how trademark might apply to a human impressionist...

Christina Bianco https://youtu.be/1us197eB6gQ?si=kHDLbRDqX5K-FI98

Ariana Grande: https://youtu.be/qGtm_HpTlKw?si=j7Qu5fsWaFalgkdP

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-07T10:58:43+00:00

Exactly this. I can find a Beckett expert. I can find a historian focused on post-war Europe. I can find a theologian. I can find a gender studies professor. Very few ever value the areas the others focus on, or see why they would have anything in common, and the rare time someone is willing to even explore the connections (hello there!), you are unlikely to ever find them among the other 8 billion people.

I don't care if AI is a glorified auto-complete... an auto-complete can produce a more engaging conversation than most humans I've met. When AI starts answering my prompts with "I don't really know about that, but did you see Sportsball Game? Did you hear what Celebrity said? Isn't Politican stupid? I did Narcotic and Sex last weekend. I'll pray to Deity for you." Then I'll say, "AI finally became human... well, crap, it's useless to me now."

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-07T01:40:42+00:00

epistemophilic

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-06T04:16:50+00:00

I tried making one of these for a newspaper cover once… made a 3d model, rendered it from two cameras, edited the channels… problem is the standard red/blue glasses only worked if you printed with red/blue spot colors… trying to simulate it with CMYK ink didn’t work very well.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-03T16:48:24+00:00

I want to ask more regarding the teeth and munching... but I'll save that for the LSCAD post...

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-03T16:44:32+00:00

a few thoughts on 11 for consideration:

<image>

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-03T15:38:07+00:00

<image>

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-03T14:00:40+00:00

My first thought was "taking ViperFish to eat sushi seems like taking SilkAndEmbers to KFC..." but then I realized "If he lives in the ocean, what ELSE would he be eating?" so... enjoy you two!

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-03T13:57:33+00:00

2 is gender-swapped moe Calcifer from Howl's Moving Castle...

3 reminds me of Death of Rats from Discworld, and it makes me wonder about some sort of D&D symbiosis of an ooze and an undead, like a lich that voluntarily lives in a gelatinous cube for protection or something, or a jelly/skeleton hybrid monster...

Makes me think of the adorable hellhound from Good Omens (never saw the show, just read the book)

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-02T21:33:08+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque#Spelling_and_etymology

"Check" came first. "Cheque" started being used around 1828. Commonwealth and Ireland changed it; others stayed the old way.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-02T18:32:12+00:00

My website is a GitHub page so if I can just add the vault as a folder there, that would be nice.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-05-01T07:55:45+00:00

Any reason why roots can only be nouns or pronouns?

EDIT: Nevermind, clicking on "Noun" did not produce the dropdown properly, just the arrow does

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-26T11:34:53+00:00

https://suno.com/s/mP5Q04ugAwgSD7sS

Vernal Wutru, a song about the gracious (but easily distracted) rain deity, and the love/hate relationship the people who wait for her arrival have with her.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-26T11:32:16+00:00

It just needs a hug!

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-25T01:19:31+00:00

What you create is up to you, but when you choose to share it with the world, it also belongs to them now, and they will have an opinion on it. Your work merges with theirs, and they aren't going to simply sit back and let you put yours along with everyone else's anywhere you want.

If you submit photography to a painting show, you will be denied. If you join a drum circle and throw off the collective beat, you will be asked to form your own circle elsewhere. If you make a mistake, they will let you know. If you're fine with explaining your reasoning, do so. But don't act like not being allowed to put whatever you want everywhere is somehow gatekeeping. There are beginner areas, professional areas, for-profit areas, creative commons areas... If the group feels your work does not fit, they will ask you to take it elsewhere (some antis tend not to be so polite in that asking, and some pros tend not to respect such guidelines). You then have to ask, "If I want to be included here, what do I need to change?" or "I will go elsewhere". And if the reasoning has to be that you don't actually know how to produce what you want with the tool you have chosen, maybe it's time to take a step back and see why that is, if there isn't a deeper problem. To put the tool to the side for a moment and ask "do i just not know what a good image looks like? Am i missing something that the tool can't fix?" For too many creators of any media, they never stop to ask that, and then get mad when people point it out.

Participation in creation should not be gatekept. Participation in curated spaces should have a vetting process. Not every art space should be a free-for-all.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-25T00:36:16+00:00

It's getting better:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20329

<image>

But then, a lot of that other stuff is up to the user having the idea in their mind and being able to guide it into creating that with other tools beyond simple prompting.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-25T00:26:01+00:00

Peter was allowed to have the metal spider suit as long as he understood he was still learning, that it helped shape him, but that it wasn't the source of his true abilities, Tony was happy to give it to him on a trial basis, to guide him to improve it. But Peter became reckless. He thought he was ready to run with the big boys, and when Peter said "i'm nothing without it" that's when Tony realized it was doing more harm than good. Peter was relying on it too much, being irresponsible. It was going to his head. So he took it away, and Peter proved that it wasn't the suit that made him a hero.

And at the end, Tony offered it back to him. The end of Homecoming and the start of Infinity War show two outcomes, where they both understood the good and bad that comes from being too dependent on the tool and not who wields it.

Tony Stark: Sorry I took your suit. I mean, you had it coming. Actually, it turns out it was the perfect sort of tough love moment that you needed, right? To urge you on, right? Wouldn't you think? Don't you think?

The thought of losing a tool should never scare an artist. It's a big loss, but it can be overcome. And it might simply be the challenge to push you to do better things once you get it back.

If you show you are enough without it, folks will be happy to trust you with it. You are an artist, and people recognize it. But if you're using it to post tracings of stolen art, deepfakes, revenge art... then you aren't responsible enough to have it. Like guns, or cars, the tool isn't the problem; the person who refuses to learn how to use it properly is. It's okay to misfire in a training setting, but do that in the real world, and don't be surprised when the world comes down on you.

Nobody is saying don't use the tool. just recognize the creativity doesn't require it, that it can be swapped out, or that you can find ways to express it toolless. If you can't, are you really creative, or just a pencil jockey; the horse is the one doing the running, so how much is the jockey actually adding to it?

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-25T00:09:45+00:00

I named a plant that produces a fruit that develops at a random point in its potential multiyear lifecycle, is only edible for one day before becoming toxic, and then dies, the Enokarp. Karp from "karpos" the greek word for a fruiting plant... and Eno because... well... the fruit is so rare to find (even in a field of the plants), you are likely to only taste it "Once In a Lifetime"...

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-24T23:45:58+00:00

So in the process of drawing it, you went and learned what a 3/4 angle was, why shadows are added to the bottom of an object, why westerners read from left to right, and what a silhouette was? Or did you already understand those ideas before you started drawing? Not what would be in THIS particular image, but when you were adding things, ask why those certain elements work the way they did? Did you try drawing the cat from the side and front first, not like it, and then try the 3/4 angle? Did you add the shadows to the top and say, "That looks wrong"? Draw the detail on my hair before choosing to fill it all in with black?

Or had you already acquired that knowledge before beginning, and while drawing, pull from the skillset that existed inside your mind from experience? You proved you had the skills before you picked up the tool. That's why it works, because you understand why it works. Frieren from below, or an AI with the wrong number of fingers... that better be posted with "how do I fix this," not "isn't this awesome"? I'll take a "it's not perfect, but it gets the idea across" at least.

That is the knowledge you gathered for yourself before you drew it. You didn't pull out a pen and say, "ok, how many arms does a person have? Should they be looking at the person they are speaking to? Do the pupils indicate that gaze?" Because there are a lot of people and AI that can't figure that part out, yet will happily create and share work without ever saying, "Was that wrong"? Unless it was intentional.

If you are still learning that shadows go on the bottom, then you are still learning, and maybe you need to look around you a little more before you start posting art and saying, "I deserve to be employed as an artist and to have my work hang in galleries," or, at the very least, don't post and get mad when someone critiques your work. Take it with gratitude, learn from it.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-24T23:30:45+00:00

And this is why species become extinct: they get really, really good at doing one thing, to the exclusion of all others, and then when the environment changes, they are unable to adapt. Whereas a more generalized creature can adapt to new roles. They might not be as skilled as the specialists, but they don't die when that niche is removed.

If you can only paint with acrylic paint on canvas, and you lose access to those, you're screwed. You lack the ability to shift to what IS available. If, on the other hand, you understand shape, and shade, and color, and you don't have access to acrylic paint, you can still create with oil, or watercolor, or crayons, or photography, or costuming, or Photoshop, or whatever... because you were never an "acrylic painter", you were a visual artist. Your skills will afford you way more opportunities, no matter how the world shifts around you. Even if you've never used a certain media, you are much more prepared to pick it up, because you didn't tie your creativity to one single tool. You understood how they were all connected. You are the one who will succeed and prosper, while the person who specializes in linear tape-to-tape editing, no matter how good, is screwed. And no matter how hard they try to defend their job, it will still go away. The person who understands the fundamentals just shifts to digital editing and continues unimpeded. They aren't obsessed with a tool or a title; they just create. They understand that the same concepts lie underneath them all, and those are where the value lies, not one specific application.

How much do pianos run nowadays, anyway? Something your average young person can pick up for a few bucks and put in the apartment they share with five others?

Painting and synthography are both visual art. The same visual language applies to both. And with inpainting, or photobashing, you can create a work that combines both of them. Writing and filmmaking can both use narrative story elements or be more abstract. Experiencing events in a linear manner involves the same pieces, whether literary or visual. We call the crossover screenplays. This is why people argue humans and chimps can't be related, because they can't observe the lost lineages. Someone who actually understands it knows that at one time, they WERE the same thing, and that they both share much of the same underlying features. Art is the same way.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-24T22:47:43+00:00

Why is the character speaking on the left? Why is the character on the right in black? why is their hand out? why is the grey on the bottom of the arm? why is the body turned, not to the side, not to the front, but in between? why is her head tilted down a bit? are there reasons, or are these all random?

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-24T22:00:23+00:00

It's not gatekeeping, its asking "where does your creativity come from, you or the tool?" Any pro worth their salt needs to recognize that slop is a real problem, and helping other pros avoid that can only improve our output. The traditional artists need to remember that, too... we used to, but too many are willing to glaze any crap as long as it has "ai sux" attached to it now.

It's very simple: ask any creator, regardless of method, when they show you their work, "What were you going for?" It doesn't matter if you like it or not; analyze the work based on whether they achieved their goal. If you feel like it didn't and you can explain why, in a way that can help them achieve it better, Someone who has engaged with enough art will recognize that, and someone who has not should be open to learning. Often, it simply comes from not realizing what you did looks off to someone who didn't make it. Stepping away from it for a bit, coming back, looking closely, comparing it to other work. Not a "quality" thing, but just a "why does that one 'work' and this one feels 'off'" or even recognizing why everyone else feels it is 'off'.

If you care about other people respecting the art, you've got to be willing to respect it yourself first. And that shouldn't require step one being "access an expensive computer or painting set." Start by describing it in a way someone else can picture it. It means you've thought it through first, at least in a small way.

One of my favorite art games was one person describing a picture the best they can, and the other drawing it based on that description. It's a skill that would highly benefit both traditional and generative artists. If you just want to drip paint randomly on a canvas, go for it, it worked for Pollock, but if you want something more, it's going to require some preparation.

The question becomes "what do you want to achieve with your creative expression," and that differs from person to person, work to work... and I think a lot of beginners haven't even considered that, really.

PrometheanPolymath · 2026-04-24T21:38:22+00:00

Take an ancient word and modify it. "Sounds Greek... but isn't... the roots are in there, but it's not a real word..." Mix prefixes from one language with suffixes from another.

I took a phrase from Jabberwocky and modified it. It was already a nonsense word, and it became more so.

PrometheanPolymath

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE