I’m not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to ‘use’ the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky…

If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it’s just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing

I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:

Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?

The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected

https://mylemmy.win/post/89871

Any instance admin, proper or rogue, gets a ton of information that users won’t normally see.

I’ve always had the opinion that anyone who can’t handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don’t see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule

For .ca specifically: as long as you are a Canadian individual, or have a sufficient connection to Canada, or a Corp with a trademark registered in Canada then you are qualified to own that domain - but as to who is really checking I have no idea… CIRA complainants maybe?

Here’s some info about .world domains https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6300841?hl=en#zippy=%2Cterms-restrictions

Lol so one could say they fucked around and have now found out (yes I realize that was a sarcastic answer)

It’s not so much a matter of whether the service would work or not but whether the corporate directors would be exposed to criminal liability for continuing to provide such services without OFCOM being able to “understand” the encrypted messages: see 99(4) of the Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

Tbf , we are trying to recreate certain elements of that platform in the fediverse and such a take would be needlessly nuanced

“Stop the corporations” or “save the API” just isn’t as effective as saying f the guy who decided to change things

TIL about Italy’s shunning of their past in contrast to the “collective guilt” felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Italians embrace their cultural and gastronomic exports while shunning certain parts of their history - I wouldn’t say that’s racist… In fact I would call that humanizing

I wonder what their response would be to a bunch of lemmings outside the reach of Germany’s laws doing the same?

And then there’s Maud

Oh is it not banned anymore? Then my bad for using that as an example, but publishers do censor the works of their authors to try and avoid liability

One of life’s truisms: everyone can lose except the lawyers involved

Not sure that’s the best analogy since publishers do have an onus not to publish certain materials (example How would that work out for someone publishing something like the anarchists cookbook?)

Conversely, its not considered feasible for content providers (who don’t generate or police the content BEFORE it’s public) to police the work of content generators (the users). That’s why s.230 of the CDA (imo) does more than the first amendment

Always wanted a “personal” website but felt I wasn’t creative enough to create anything useful enough… Maybe a wiki was the best I could come up with

Care to share what you use the website for exactly?

Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??

Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)

Good dam times ? (Idk)

Doubling down I see