I mean, I understand you need to make money but if you choose to use the name of an ancient Greek Goddess as your trade name, you can’t get exclusivity. You just can’t.

You should not be allowed to do DMCA searches on words that are over two thousand years old.

If the choice is between working on a literal genocide machine and dying, the moral choice is dying. Granting an exception for the guy who sabotages the genocide machine by building in a way to blow it up.

Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.

Or the novelty of AI-created art will wear off and we’ll go on with our lives.

Actually, that money goes to the Welsh and other Celtic peoples and ALSO comes from the British Royal Family, who is descended from invaders.

“We apologize for the inconvenience.”

Well, just about every world is a dystopia with only one climate.

It occurs to me that the Star wars universe just might not have weathermen.

See, now THIS is rentrophy.

If someone ever made dummy cartridges they would sell nicely, I suspect.

@Num10ck Put a black cartridge where the color cartridge should be?

It would create jobs.

That’s thing, though. That’s the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren’t doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.

If you use an AI as just another tool, that’s one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.

Yeah, but detectability isn’t a new question, is it? It’s just a twist on the old question of “Did someone else create it other than the guy who claimed it?”

Well, computer forensics IS a thing. Computers keep a record of everything done on them, and if it comes down to a lot of money at stake and a lawsuit then those computers can be looked at.

Funny, because photography is actually the precedent on this. A monkey took a picture, it was not copyrightable.

I’d advise you to keep a record of your creative process here, because it may come down to how many prompts you used to steer it.

@nous I figure a judge wouldn’t count prompts because they are basically commissions. If you commission an artist to create a piece for you, it’s still their piece. If a corporation commissions the artist to create the piece, they can own it as work-for-hire, which is EXACTLY what Thaler was trying to claim in this case, but they aren’t the creator.

If you can replace “AI” with “Professional Artist” and you wouldn’t be eligible for your amount of input, then it’s not copyrightable.

@foggy There’s another article that clarifies the decision. Works created by a human with AI assistance are copyrightable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

Works created solely by AI, like if all the human did was enter a prompt into ChatGPT or Midjourney, are not copyrightable.

I prefer this too. I look at things from kbin.social so I never learn just how many downvotes I’m getting.