cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 17 hours agoSony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual propertywww.axios.comexternal-linkmessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up1412arrow-down14
arrow-up1408arrow-down1external-linkSony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual propertywww.axios.comcantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 17 hours agomessage-square46fedilink
minus-squareredditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·3 hours agoUh AI steals everyone’s work. How it’s legal I’ll never know.
minus-squarejumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 hours agobecause it was ruled to be a transformative work, like how someone making a video essay on a book/game/movie is (sometimes) not violating copyright.
minus-squareantimidas@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·1 hour agoIf AI continues to be treated as transformative work, there should also be a valid case to kill licensing requirements for sampling music. After all, there you’re literally using small clips of someone’s music or similar to make undeniably new art.
minus-squareNuanceDemon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 hour agoTo be fair, that should have happened a long time ago. Copyright law hasn’t been fit for purpose for a long time.
minus-squareblockheadjt@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoSo if I modify someone else’s art and call it my own, the courts will respect this precedent and let me go?
minus-squarejumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoif you have enough lawyers and the art ia substantially different (different inteded use) they might
minus-square7101334@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·25 minutes agoYou got downvoted but this is just true lol (Fuck AI slop though)
minus-squareredditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 hours agoI saw this ruling and fully disagree.
Uh AI steals everyone’s work. How it’s legal I’ll never know.
because it was ruled to be a transformative work, like how someone making a video essay on a book/game/movie is (sometimes) not violating copyright.
If AI continues to be treated as transformative work, there should also be a valid case to kill licensing requirements for sampling music. After all, there you’re literally using small clips of someone’s music or similar to make undeniably new art.
To be fair, that should have happened a long time ago. Copyright law hasn’t been fit for purpose for a long time.
So if I modify someone else’s art and call it my own, the courts will respect this precedent and let me go?
if you have enough lawyers and the art ia substantially different (different inteded use) they might
You got downvoted but this is just true lol
(Fuck AI slop though)
I saw this ruling and fully disagree.