cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agoSony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual propertywww.axios.comexternal-linkmessage-square52linkfedilinkarrow-up1499arrow-down15
arrow-up1494arrow-down1external-linkSony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual propertywww.axios.comcantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square52linkfedilink
minus-squarejumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10arrow-down1·1 month agobecause it was ruled to be a transformative work, like how someone making a video essay on a book/game/movie is (sometimes) not violating copyright.
minus-squareantimidas@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16·1 month agoIf AI continues to be treated as transformative work, there should also be a valid case to kill licensing requirements for sampling music. After all, there you’re literally using small clips of someone’s music or similar to make undeniably new art.
minus-squareNuanceDemon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·1 month agoTo be fair, that should have happened a long time ago. Copyright law hasn’t been fit for purpose for a long time.
minus-squareredditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·1 month agoI saw this ruling and fully disagree.
minus-squareblockheadjt@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month agoSo if I modify someone else’s art and call it my own, the courts will respect this precedent and let me go?
minus-squarejumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month agoif you have enough lawyers and the art ia substantially different (different inteded use) they might
minus-square7101334@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 month agoYou got downvoted but this is just true lol (Fuck AI slop though)
because it was ruled to be a transformative work, like how someone making a video essay on a book/game/movie is (sometimes) not violating copyright.
If AI continues to be treated as transformative work, there should also be a valid case to kill licensing requirements for sampling music. After all, there you’re literally using small clips of someone’s music or similar to make undeniably new art.
To be fair, that should have happened a long time ago. Copyright law hasn’t been fit for purpose for a long time.
I saw this ruling and fully disagree.
So if I modify someone else’s art and call it my own, the courts will respect this precedent and let me go?
if you have enough lawyers and the art ia substantially different (different inteded use) they might
You got downvoted but this is just true lol
(Fuck AI slop though)