FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

2,031

Joined

2 yr. ago

Technically, it's far less explosive than a gasoline powered vehicle. However, batteries are very hard to extinguish if they catch fire.

Yes, but unfortunately they vote by state not individually

content aware delete

I didn't say anything about "content aware delete"

every single photo touched

You still haven't grasped that copyright can be applied to some elements of a photo, but not others.

user doing everything

I've said many times that copyright protects the creative decisions in a work, which you can't seem to distinguish from "doing everything".

monkey selfie

Now explain why Andy Warhol could not claim copyright over "Orange Prince". It has nothing to do with nonhumans or AI.

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with creative decisions. Or lack thereof.

I'll take his mother's advice:

"You don’t have to register to vote. Have 10 fake names, go to 10 petitions and sign 10 times. That’s $4700, and it’s not illegal."

You sign the envelope that contains the ballot. That way, an election worker can compare the signature on the envelope to your signature on file.

This is how they make sure that someone didn't steal the ballot from your mailbox and fill it out for you.

Once the signature is verified, the envelope is opened and the anonymous ballot inside is removed and stored with all the others. When they are counted, there will be no way to tell who filled out each ballot.

OK Nostradamus. I'll file that prediction alongside "Full self drive in 2018" and "Mars landing in 2024"

At what point does the generative capabilities in Photoshop (which you can give prompts to) become not controlling the output?

At the point where a creative decision is made that the user did not control, that element is not eligible for copyright.

So to return to my example: suppose a photographer takes a photo of a model and asks an AI to add a dog to the image. Unless the dog comes from one of their other photos, they can't copyright it (although they can still copyright the model).

Now suppose another photographer takes a photo of Mt Everest. They ask the same AI to add a dog to the image, which results in the same (or very similar) dog. The first photographer can't sue the second one for copyright infringement, because the first one didn't create that dog and therefore has no rights over it.

At which point does control net (which literally allows you to pose models and replace every single thing about a scene along with numerous other features) become “controlling the output”.

That's like asking "How many alterations do I have to make to an image of the Mona Lisa to transform it into something I can copyright it as my own work?"

The answer is: it's up to the judge. See: Lynn Goldsmith vs Andy Warhol

See any sort of public art, or even the paintings you make by literally just pouring paint on a canvas or hanging a bucket of paint by a string and having it move across a canvas and drip.

An artist pouring paint on canvas or hanging a bucket of paint on a string can still plausibly tell a judge that they controlled the output. The behavior of such mechanical devices is fully predictable by the user. Or they might claim that they controlled some elements of the output but not others. Then they can copyright the elements they controlled.

Of course if they want to lose their copyright, then they are free to tell everyone that they didn't really have any control over the output. See: Monkey selfie.

public art

You can copyright a tangible thing that you personally created but you can't claim a copyright over the interaction of the public with what you created.

To the extent that members of the public contribute tangible creative elements to the work (for example inviting the public to decorate your work), those contributors will share the copyright with you over the final result.

No, but that would explain why literally no prosecutor has enforced this law in over 150 years.

Again, defrauding means using deception. How does that apply here?

That's like saying "homosexuality is a crime in Texas, because a law against it exists".

If nobody will enforce a law that's obviously unconstitutional, then that law de facto does not exist.

Fraud requires deception. How does that apply here?

"Interfering with the elected will" is not a crime.

If it were, all protests would be illegal.

The SCOTUS has made pretty clear that all speech is protected unless it falls into one of these categories:

• Incitement
• Obscenity
• Defamation
• Fraud
• Illegal advertising
• Fighting words
• Threats
• CSAM

"International diplomacy" isn't among the exceptions, and therefore it's protected.

No, I didn't. I'll walk you through it again.

(a) Manson convinced people to join his murder plan. But he didn't just convince people, he also

(b) Took a concrete step to actualize his plan

When (a) and (b) are both present, that's a conspiracy

The elements of a conspiracy are (a) planning a crime with someone, and (b) taking any step, no matter how minor, to advance the plan.

Both are necessary. Planning a violent revolution without taking any concrete action is just talking shit, which is generally not illegal. Good thing for Lemmy users.

Likewise, inadvertently helping a murderer without having a criminal plan, like Ma and Pa, is also not illegal.

Put the two together, and you've got an illegal conspiracy.

He didn't just convince people. For example, in one of the murders he drove with his accomplices to the crime scene.

Prosecutors can use any concrete action, no matter how minor, to tie him to the murder. Manson's gun was used in the Tate murders, which is more than enough. But even giving the others a place to stay can be enough.

Charles Manson was guilty of murder and conspiracy, which are more than just influencing others. Both require taking some concrete action.

Our interpretation of the First Amendment has undeniably changed a lot over the centuries. The Sedition Act, also in 1798, sent someone to jail for calling the President "not only a repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor, but...in private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent." Such a prosecution would be a non-starter today.

It's sad that the Second Amendment seems to be frozen in time, for now.

Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it's directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans "influencing" someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.

There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people "flagrantly violate the law" every day.

He is trying to influence Saudi-US diplomatic relations, which we all have a First Amendment right to do.

He isn't "negotiating a contract", because only agents of the US government can negotiate contracts with the US.