Wondering if someone can bring a class action lawsuit against tracer.ai and/or their clients.
Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
121–130 of 153 posts
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
Just make the bond a % of the entity's revenue. Like that (apocryphal?) story about how Nokia CEO got speeding ticket of several million dollars in Finland, due to the ticket being a % of income. Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims. Hmm, may…
Just a token fee like $5 would discourage spamming claims, though it does make fighting against re-uploads of the same content harder (the power balance isn't too bad for the play store where there is an entry fee for publishers as well).
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
You do understand that corporations aren't the only entities who produce content and file copyright claims, right? Independent artists, authors, developers, etc. all need to be able to file claims too, and they're already much more vulnerable. I hate the current copyright regime as much as anyone, but the solution can't be one that makes it even less helpful for independent creatives and even more abusable by corporations.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#124I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…
This isn't DMCA. The DMCA process provides for immediate restoration of contested content upon issuance of a counter notice. At that point the internet service is absolved of any responsibility until a court orders the removal. Google has never implemented that process.
And that's because the DMCA lets Google exploit its position. It's still a DMCA problem until the DMCA is either repealed or fixed to produce a comprehensively good situation.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#125> We received a similar notice from the same company in 2023 and successfully appealed against it. This company also filed a similar notice this year against an indie game with similar voxel art style by the name of Allumeria. They'll backtrack and apologize - again. At some point, the pathway for Microsoft to regain some of the goodwill associated with Minecraft is to fire the senior lawyer most responsible for send…
Well they said it was filed by Tracer.AI Minecraft does indeed have a lot of knockoffs that sometimes even use official imagery (e.g. the creeper). It seems Microsoft is using this AI tool to automatically detect these and submit DMCA requests If anything, this problem would be fixed by hiring MORE lawyers. Not firing them.
They're likely using this copyright tool as it's cheaper than paying lawyers to scour the internet for infringing content. They're probably right, as long as the externalities of the AI tool's false positives fall on others, like the Allumeria and Luanti devs. There really should be a system to push the burden back on Microsoft - they can save the lawyer costs, but then they are as responsible for the AI decisions as they are for a human employee's actions.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#126I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…
This isn't DMCA. The DMCA process provides for immediate restoration of contested content upon issuance of a counter notice. At that point the internet service is absolved of any responsibility until a court orders the removal. Google has never implemented that process.
Yes, Google is really bad at this. For all the problems with Amazon, they're actually much better at actually following DMCA
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Green Spiderman would be copying of protected elements - like Spiderman's outline. Style and general ideas are not protected by copyright. Substantial similarity comes in as a test for whether copying of those protected elements occurred, to avoid an otherwise disprovable "I didn't copy, I just drew Spiderman's exact outline by complete coincidence" defense, but is irrelevant if the what's supposedly been copied isn'…
Usually the benchmark is "would a person reasonably confuse this for being the IP of another company" https://www.luanti.org/media/gallery/5.jpg C'mon...
The most prominent object in that scene is the low poly airship. Minecraft does not have vehicles, does not have objects with components with such a small thickness as the railings, does not have angles like the bow of the ship or the ropes.
It looks more like a Runescape asset than a Minecraft one, for example:
https://runescape.wiki/images/thumb/The_Adventurous.png/1200...
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
Big companies regularly rip off small creators. Even if the copyright theft is incredibly obvious, a big company has the funds to drag out the legal proceedings for years. Do you have that kind of money?
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#129oh this is minetest, i thought it was that residential proxy company at first glance
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#130The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.
It is not a legal process. It is Google's process designed to minimize their involvement to the maximum degree possible. When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private part…
In the Starbucks example wouldn't there theoretically be a defamation claim against the person who lied about you - just with absurdly small damages that aren't worth pursuing.