Shazbot @ Shazbot @lemmy.world

Just a guy jumping from a hot mess into more prosperous waters.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

60

Joined

2 yr. ago

It is pretty idiotic imo that the music industry can ban people from showing song lyrics. Iirc you have to get a license to list song lyrics since they’re technically a copyrighted work.

Here's the thing, if its copyright-able you can get a license for it. Amazon already has licenses to sell and stream music, that part of the usage agreement was already negotiated. A simple analogy would be you want to buy three games from a store, you pay for two but leave with three. Obviously the store is not happy with you. You've shown you're legally compliant with two games, yet took the third without paying.

But there are some interesting caveats in the article:

The lawsuit, which is the first from a music publisher against an AI company over the use of lyrics, was filed in the wake of the Authors Guild — representing a host of prominent fiction authors including George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham — suing OpenAI last month.

This makes sense since lyrics aren't all that different from poetry, and whole albums could be considered a collection of short works. So loosening the copyright protections may give AI companies more data to work with, but it would end up hurting authors (lyricists, screen writers, novelists) and related fields. A real world fallout would be SAG-AFTRA strikers losing royalties and bargaining power, while empowering and enriching the big studios' own AI models.

I wanted to see if Anthropic, the company being sued, has the money on hand to pay for licenses, to square up legally if you will. Well, doesn't look like Anthropic is hurting for cash as of 3rd quarter 2023.

Amazon said on Monday that it’s investing up to $4 billion into the artificial intelligence company Anthropic in exchange for partial ownership and Anthropic’s greater use of Amazon Web Services (AWS), the e-commerce giant’s cloud computing platform.

Even if the licenses were 10 million in total, that would leave 3,990,000,000 on hand; or .0025% of what Amazon offered. I don't see how they'd walk away without settling for the licensing fees and legal expenses. They're financially secure and partially owned by a company that is legally compliant with its own handling of intellectual property.

Gas! Gas! Gas! I gonna step on the gas!

It really depends on what the site's terms of service/usage agreement says about the content posted on the site.

For example a site like Art Station has users agree to a usage license that lets them host and transmit the images in their portfolios. However there is no language saying the visitors are also granted these rights. So you may be able to collect the site text for fair use, but the art itself requires reaching out for anything other than personal/educational use.

I don't blame you. Even in a professional setting tagging is mind numbing and tedious. The only difference is without tagging you might miss an image that can be licensed and the business opportunity that needed it.

They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat it.

Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals? What issues and solutions do you see that aren't addressed? I understand I'm an outsider looking in on this issue, avoiding the mentality ill homeless like many others. But if my vote can go towards a better solutions I'd like to learn about them.

If we apply the current ruling of the US Copyright Office then the prompt writer cannot copyright if AI is the majority of the final product. AI itself is software and ineligible for copyright; we can debate sentience when we get there. The researchers are also out as they simply produce the tool--unless you're keen on giving companies like Canon and Adobe spontaneous ownership of the media their equipment and software has created.

As for the artists the AI output is based upon, we already have legal precedent for this situation. Sampling has been a common aspect of the music industry for decades now. Whenever an musician samples work from others they are required to get a license and pay royalties, by an agreed percentage/amount based on performance metrics. Photographers and film makers are also required to have releases (rights of a person's image, the likeness of a building) and also pay royalties. Actors are also entitled to royalties by licensing out their likeness. This has been the framework that allowed artists to continue benefiting from their contributions as companies min-maxed markets.

Hence Shutterstock's terms for copyright on AI images is both building upon legal precedent, and could be the first step in getting AI work copyright protection: obtaining the rights to legally use the dataset. The second would be determining how to pay out royalties based on how the AI called and used images from the dataset. The system isn't broken by any means, its the public's misunderstanding of the system that makes the situation confusing.

There's one that comes to mind: registration of works with the Copyright Office. When submitting a body of work you need to ensure that you've got everything in order. This includes rights for models/actors, locations, and other media you pull from. Having AI mixed in may invalidate the whole submission. It's cheaper to submit related work in bulk, a fair amount of Loki materials could be in limbo until the application is amended or resubmitted.

Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.

The advertising angle is likely what sank their case. Proving the food does not meet a technical specification, like not having a quarter pound of beef in a fully cooked patty, is easier to prove. But advertising has always been hyperbole.

This is your daily reminder to engage and boost Twitter alternatives such as Mastodon. It's not enough to ignore Twitter. We must build communities to draw in users, show them social media can exist without Elon or Zuck. Only when good alternatives exist, with content and people sought after, do users feel safe to abandon old platforms.

Fixing requires readers support their preferred news outlets with subscriptions. Currently headlines need to drive the ad machine if the lights are going to stay on. Challenging the ad buyer's main revenue stream is not financially viable. It's the main reason news outlets do not want to touch Medicare For All, pharmaceutical ads are big money makers. Money in politics is a no-go because it's a guaranteed cash infusion every two years, not to mention the overlap with other ad buyers. Decoupling the ads from the main revenue gives media outlets the freedom they need to address the news as they seem fit.

Don't forget your manpower is limited. No one is a lemmy.world employee and people need sleep. That leaves 8 hours in a day for literally everything else a person needs/wants to do. Having one service that just works is a load off an all volunteer team's back.

Not really, we're dealing with a city that slides between 15~23% voter turn out with a bias towards older voters who previously leaned center/center right. So even if 4 in 10 of the total population dislikes the incumbent, the odds were still in their favor due to self selection and name recognition. For the challenger to get over 30% on the first try shows our previous mayor was already experiencing dissatisfaction from swing voters.

At least that's how it was in 2016, as of 2022 we now have a progressive super majority on city council plus the mayor.

As a Californian and with regards to Pelosi that blame is on us--the voters. Incumbents with mediocre records can still win reelection on name recognition alone. Getting progressive challengers in California isn't hard. But getting progressives that can build their brand and base to a competitive size to match incumbents, while surviving the mudslide of bad press from establishment outlets? That's hard.

Hell, my home town despised the previous mayor. Still won his reelection in 2016 by nearly 2/3^rds despite a progressive challenger who has been active in city politics and community outreach for over a decade. Had to wait until he termed out in 2020 before we could get the current progressive mayor in office.

Let's break down some of the confusion you're experiencing.

• When it comes to buildings there is indeed copyright on the building itself. The question is did you get a usage license from the owner to photograph the building for your purposes? For example if I were to get a written usage license for the lighting of the Eiffel Tower at night, and a location permit from the city I would be able to photograph it. This is common in commercial photography with contracts known as property releases.
• Theft in regards to photography usually means taking photographs of classified or trade secrets. General photographing of buildings in public spaces would not qualify as theft but copyright violation as per the previous example.

If you want to learn more you can google "photography usage rights" or "photography license agreement" and deep dive the untold number of blog posts about it. You can check out this blog post for a crash course if you need good starting point.

If books are more your fancy there's Nancy Wolff's The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook and the American Society of Media Photographer's Professional Business Practices in Photography; both are pretty old but a very easy to understand. John Harrington's Best Business Practices for Photographers also goes into detail and is more recent, but very broad in what it covers. Technically, there's the demo for fotobiz X which will let you make a sample contract from their templates.

I'm sure you'll find more resources but these books were my go-tos when I was working as a photographer. If you feel like socializing you check out your local APA (American Photographic Artists) or ASMP (American Society of Photographic Artists) chapters. Not sure if membership is still a requirement for attending events but it doesn't hurt to ask.

They do have intelligence, but that intelligence is deliberately underfunded to prevent this very situation. It's impossible to navigate the mountains of paperwork and legal loopholes the ultra-wealthy use with so few hands. That's why poorer filers get audited more often: less leg work, easier wins, at the expense of real revenue and justice against tax evaders.

Somebody once told me

The Borg are gonna roll me

I ain't the sharpest tool in the Delta

The odd phrasing as its likely the original audio from that take, as redubbing would be saved for confirmed scenes.