The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

  • Cabrio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re talking specifically about AI generated content because that’s what the court case in the article ruled on, stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

    • CileTheSane@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

      Translation: “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument so I’m going to pretend it’s off topic.”

      If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. “You clearly don’t understand” just screams that you don’t have any foundational arguments for your claims.

      You want to us to stay on topic?

      Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

      A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald’s and Disney and they will lose easily.

      “The courts have declared I don’t own the copyright for this” is not a defense for using protected images.