11–18 of 18 posts
YouTube already had a problem where small channels get copyright strikes for their own content. AI makes that a problem now for everything everywhere.
I thought AI generated content couldn't be copyrighted or used in copyright claims. I guess the problem is proving that it was AI generated?
Ironically, the post doesn’t even mention her name, just “musical artist”. This is part of the engagement bait, leaving details out so that people will click to tweet either to pause the vid to read the moving watermark or to find out her from the comments, increasing the signal for the algorithm. At this point I would say either drop the copyright system or enforce it properly, that is either unlimited derivative wo…
(BTF = Blue Tick Fucker, an initialism I'm trying to get to take off, primarily in my WhatsApp groups where there's loads of self-proclaimed geopolitics experts claiming to know exactly what's going on and what will happen and why.)
YouTube already had a problem where small channels get copyright strikes for their own content. AI makes that a problem now for everything everywhere.
Maybe AI will be what finally makes people realise how absurd the concept of Imaginary Property is.
She should sue them for damages, lost wages, etc.
Otherwise ALL OF YOU ARE NEXT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe AI will be what finally makes people realise how absurd the concept of Imaginary Property is.
Doubtful. People seem to be moving in the opposite direction since they hate AI so much.
AI music can not be copyrighted. She should sue them for damages, lost wages, etc. Otherwise ALL OF YOU ARE NEXT.
A fraudulent claimant like this is often some anonymous operation that can pop up under a different name the next day. Good luck finding them (and hope they are even located in a place where suing for copyright would even make sense).
Youtube is protected by their terms and the DCMA, as far as I know.