Using AIGen may be seen as an "overt act" of knowingly placing such derivative into the public domain.
i.e., you know that using AI gen has no author (Thaler v. Perlmutter). Thus, if you still use it - then you know the output will be public domain - as you know that AI Gen outputs have no author.
You are wrong. It is a case by case determination and no precedent has been set at all on "market harm".
Recent filings in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc have opened up the fair use defense failings related to training because of perceived future market harm.
You are being antagonistic. In Bartz v. Anthropic downloading works without authorization and storing them was NOT fair use because those works cold be- and were- used for multiple purposes not related to AI training. Anthropic now have to pay $1.5Billion in damages.
"there's no obligation to identify what is AI"
Yes there is. e.g. USCO require anything more than de minimis use of AI to be disclaimed or else such a registration that doesn't disclaim AI may be cancelled. (See USCO v. Kashtanova)
Well the code would not have any human author to attach any rights to. (Copyright arise to authors (Natural persons) not the media itself.))
So that code can be taken by anyone else and there is no author to complain about it. The resulting Website would also be author-less and thus up for grabs.
Aaaaaand here comes the gaslighting.
There is no "creativity" using a vending machine. You are NOT being creative.
Write some poetry if you want to be creative.
Animation is not the only form of my expression.
How do you think people like Dante Alighieri were creative without a computer?
If you mean the voice as "expression" (The thing that made it yours) then that is the subject of copyright.
AI Gen user are taking stuff from the Intent and running it through an AI Gen so that it alters it and then claiming to be "artists".
Being disabled doesn't give you a free pass to gaslight people. We know exactly how people are using AI Gen.
"unless YOU add your human touch to it."
Still doesn't provide "exclusivity". e.g. Adding human authored lyrics on top of AI Music & arrangement doesn't prevent others swapping the human lyrics with their own.
(Feist v. Rural). It's better to avoid AI Gen. The artists who understand this will win.
Google funds Internet Archive web scraping tools so that Google can profit from everyone's works.
It is Google that is the cause of this. Tech Giant enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.
So focus your target of vitriol to the right source. Google.
No. There is no real copyright protection for AI generated works because there is no "exclusivity" and only exclusive rights 17 U.S.C. § 106 are protected in U.S. Federal courts.
That's not exactly true and a massive misunderstanding of USCO Guidelines.
There is no "exclusivity" in selection and arrangement. Anyone can change the arrangement and avoid infringement. Feist v. Rural. In effect there is no real © protection for AI Gen stuff.
FYI. "Market harm" - "the most important of the fair use factors—market harm—will often be highly fact-dependent, such that training claims would likely be individualized and therefore not precluded by a judgment against the class on the distribution claim." J.Chabbria
www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/...
Ah yes, this was how copyright disputes used to be settled!
The tech in terms of generative AI is worthless because of the lack of exclusive licensing value. This is distinct from utilitarian AI for tasks that don't involve copyright.
But the idea of "letting AI create for you" is flawed because the output is worthless and can be taken by anyone for free.
Tech companies embracing artificial intelligence to write their software code — and boasting about it — may be running into a gap in copyright protection: the more they rely on AI, the harder it may be to claim exclusive rights when that code is copied or leaked.
"By distributing Hailuo AI through the Apple App
Store and Google Play Store,"
Soooo, this is where the DMCAct would be relevant. The studios should really sue the distributors in the US.
Apple and Google wouldn't qualify for Safeharbour protection.
Same with my case against Valve (9th Circuit)
Cox v. Sony is limited to the US only. Also, The studios can only sue for infringement in the US under US law. (Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994))
Additionally, under Berne Con Art. 5(2) it would be China where the studios need to file suit.
FYI. Internet Trolls used my work in AI Gen to antagonize me.
Also demonstrating that users will make derivatives using © works themselves which easily violates e.g. 17 U.S.C. 106(2) and shows potential market harm.
www.reddit.com/r/antiai/com...
No one agreed to it. Especially not in the UK as there are no © exceptions i the UK that would allow copyrighted works to be used for commercial machine learning apps.
In the US it is also illegal to download millions/billions of © works without authorization and is why Anthropic have to pay 1.5Blln
Copilot generates code without a traditional human author. So there is no IP to protect.
Anyone can take anything created by AI. Code, images, text, sound etc.
AI generated output cannot have exclusive protection. Even "selection and arrangement" doesn't provide exclusivity.
(Feist v. Rural).
How are you going to protect your IP?
Internet Archive is funded by Google. They are not the "good guys" doing work for "the people". They are trying to exploit people to help enrich billion dollar tech companies which is entirely a capitalist motive and you are too naive to see the reality of what is happening.
You are talking nonsense and obviously know nothing about copyright law. You are confusing "work for hire" (WFH) with the whole of copyright law. WFH doesn't exist in most of the world and employees in the EU maintain *actual © ownership*. You need more education.
See EU DSM Copyright Directive.
Google funds Internet Archive web scrapping tools.
Internet Archive had revenues of approximately $23.7 million in 2023.
Arguments against AI based on illegal downloading of copyrighted works does hold water. e.g. Anthropic are on the hook for $1.5 billion in damages and face a number of other law suites.
You are being very foolish.
The tech might be clever but it's like a "magic trick". It's not "actual magic". One could do amazing things with "actual magic" but AI is NOT "actual magic". It's an over hyped trick that will be exposed in the next year or two as a kind of Ponzi scheme. *No exclusive licensing value in AI outputs!
There's no copyright in AI Generated outputs, nor IP in AI inventions. US Tech firms are stupidly using AI Gen to "vibe code" the tech so the rest of the world can take all the innovation for free in any case.
If anything it demonstrates how worthless a tech is that produces unlicensable outputs.
Karen by name...
Karen by name....
