11–20 of 79 posts
Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.
Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.
On one hand aggressively punitive copyright claims stifle creativity and innovation in transformative art. On the other hand, generative AI reopens that transformative creativity.
That’s a bit rich, isn’t it? Why did she not simply search the file name, nevermind reverse image searching the photo itself? Since when is ignorance an excuse - especially in a case like this, when claiming ignorance/negligence could easily cover for deliberate intent?
> I was struck by the fact that the blog post had 43 views. With such low stakes, how did this case make it to federal court and reach summary judgment??? Yeah, fascinating that a 43-view blog post would go all the way to the federal court like this. Surely the plaintiff often has people give up and pay because they fear the case? Otherwise the economics of chasing down copyright violations of this scale surely don't…
I swear, on a busy week I had about 5 people reading that blog and they were all coworkers. The next day, I had a 6th visitor from Los Angeles and got excited. Who was this mysterious visitor? I found out when I opened my email and saw a C&D from Universal's lawyers saying I was abusing the trademark.
I blogged the next day, "Wtf, Universal?" and a few days later, got an email from the local celeb apologizing for the overzealous legal team. He was indeed totally cool about it.
Essentially, the judge found that this qualifies as fair use because (a) publishing this with commentary is "transformative" even through "Defendants used the exact, unaltered [photo] in the blog post"; (b) "the blog post is not focused on the [photo]"; and (c) "there is no indication that [the use] impacted or has potential to impact the market or value of the Photo".
As an amateur photographer, this doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings about posting anything I shoot online. By the reasoning here, a company (as in the commercial site here) can use my photos so long as the use is incidental and doesn't earn them too much money -- or at least impact my revenue, which is currently $0.
Heaven help me, though, should I misuse a corporation's copyrighted works, even purely personally.
Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.
Training is not neccesarily sufficient for it to be a derrivative work, just like if you learned to draw based on famous drawings doesn't mean every single drawing you ever made is infringing.
Obviously there are cases where it could be infringing, its going to depend how close the output is to the original.
I guess it depends on how you read the post, is it saying use gen-AI to intentionally recreate the photo, something that sounds danger-zone, or are they saying use gen-ai to make some other photo suitable for purpose?
Lots to comment on but this stood out: > “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.
Except everyone who has tried to argue that in court has lost.
> I was struck by the fact that the blog post had 43 views. With such low stakes, how did this case make it to federal court and reach summary judgment??? Yeah, fascinating that a 43-view blog post would go all the way to the federal court like this. Surely the plaintiff often has people give up and pay because they fear the case? Otherwise the economics of chasing down copyright violations of this scale surely don't…
This seems... troubling to me. Essentially, the judge found that this qualifies as fair use because (a) publishing this with commentary is "transformative" even through "Defendants used the exact, unaltered [photo] in the blog post"; (b) "the blog post is not focused on the [photo]"; and (c) "there is no indication that [the use] impacted or has potential to impact the market or value of the Photo". As an amateur pho…
