The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

  • CileTheSane@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “there’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning a drawing of your likeness…”

    • Cabrio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re talking specifically about AI generated content because that’s what the court case in the article ruled on, stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

      • CileTheSane@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

        Translation: “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument so I’m going to pretend it’s off topic.”

        If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. “You clearly don’t understand” just screams that you don’t have any foundational arguments for your claims.

        You want to us to stay on topic?

        Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

        A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald’s and Disney and they will lose easily.

        “The courts have declared I don’t own the copyright for this” is not a defense for using protected images.

          • CileTheSane@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just catching up to the where I was in the first place? The argument you were so insistent was wrong and proved I “Didn’t understand”?

            • Cabrio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              See, that’s what happens when you leave for 4 hours, conversations move on, people learn things.

              • CileTheSane@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hey, good on you for learning things and admitting you were wrong.

                Next time avoid statements like “stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about” and you won’t look like such an ass when you actually read the article and realize you were wrong in the first place.