caption
a screenshot of the text:
Tech companies argued in comments on the website that the way their models ingested creative content was innovative and legal. The venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which has several investments in A.I. start-ups, warned in its comments that any slowdown for A.I. companies in consuming content “would upset at least a decade’s worth of investment-backed expectations that were premised on the current understanding of the scope of copyright protection in this country.”
underneath the screenshot is the "Oh no! Anyway" meme, featuring two pictures of Jeremy Clarkson saying "Oh no!" and "Anyway"
screenshot (copied from this mastodon post) is of a paragraph of the NYT article "The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I."
Gonna bet the floating candles aren't historically accurate.
Yeah. Free and clear. As much as you're allowed to take a photo of the actual extremely-visible landmark.
But you're probably not allowed to build a replica as a tourist attraction.
My impression of your understanding is not impressive.
What you are referring to is called freedom of panorama and it is everything but free and clear. France only has a limited version of this since 2016
Wikipedia has to use a censored image for a public statue that newspapers there are still getting sued about.
I did make made an error. The Eiffel tower isn’t copyright protected but the lights on it are. So pictures by day are fair use but at night there Illegal.
I cannot fault you for not knowing any of this because how a reasonable person is supposed to know from the top of their hat wat is and is not a copyrighted work is part of the absurdity about these laws.
Your impression of my understanding does not impress you but at least I somewhat do know what i am talking about. You stating you have never read such legislation feels a bit of the joke when the topic has so much legal history.
Glibly equating taking a picture and publishing a picture does not help your argument.
Generating an image is not about to infringe copyright. No more than drawing it and showing it to the guy beside you. Copyright is about the use of images. Mostly: copying.
Using whatever image comes out as your company logo, as if anything created by anyone through any means can ever be automatically "free and clear" of all prior art, is obviously stupid. Like come on. No shit the draw-anything machine can draw popular characters, major brands, famous scenes, etc., etc., etc. Rendering stuff we recognize is what it's for. Nobody promised you a universally bespoke image, somehow unlike anything reality had ever seen before. Why in the name of god would that expectation be a metric worth discussing?
Ai now is just a fraction of what it can do in the near future.
I did not Equate taking a picture with Publishing, my example was on a stream which is publishing. I also think people should be free to publish ai creations.
If you feel like a cool social project (inspired by music industry bankrupting kopimashin artwork made by Peter sundre):
train an ai on night pictures of the EiffelTower and build a bot to continually generate more depictions on a live stream. I predict It may take a while for the french government to notice but they will notice and take it down no matter that you don't live in france. I am only not doing this cause i dont wanna get sued.
All i am trying to explain with all of this is that copyright law is incredibly complex, often illogical, often does not get enforced but when it gets enforced it can ruin lives.
People acting like these laws are obvious when they are not is proof that they need to change drastically.