Post

So a copyright is meaningless

Yuck That is theft.

Big money gets whatever they want. For now.

This is a terrible interpretation that just makes big tech companies even less accountable while doing absolutely nothing to protect creators and workers. I hope the plaintiffs push back on this, because there are too many double standards in IP law that overwhelmingly benefit corporations already

As usual, it's a case of 'if you have $billions it's ok, but if you have nothing, go to jail'.

Yeah it's what AI does and the judge ruled it's fair use. Creating a duplicate copy and feeding it into a machine, which then (when prompted) uses it to create derivatives. So you too can create a digital duplicate of Disney's movies, store it for "training" and then put out derivatives. All legal!

I should have said “end goal”, not primary use.

It’s not for anyone else. That’s why archive of our own (a fanfic archive with lawyers to protect works from copyright take downs) is so hot on authors linking to any donation site or asking for money. It’s against TOS basically cos their legal defence is “no one makes money=fair use”

I am sorry you just don't understand capitalism. Its fair for the rich and powerful to exploit you. /sarcasm

The laws that we make regarding copyright are about consumption of said content and those laws are written for people and not machines. Machines are consuming the content. Machines have no legal standing. The law should not apply to a machine.

This is far from over. There will be appeals in the US and they aren't as likely to even win at this level in the EU. An EU failure will be catastrophic, preventing use of any model trained under this stupid US ruling in the EU and probably elsewhere in the world.

Capitalism means allowing the rich and the powerful to steal your work because the work is "transformative"

If anyone wondered what the world would look like if people had no faith in any aspect of the judicial system, are you in luck!

Anthrop backslash C

Surprising, given the precedent set by Warhol v. Goldsmith—and definitely not great for creators. This issue will likely keep moving through the courts, reinforcing just how much copyright tends to favor big institutions.

How this judge didn’t go further along the logic chain and didn’t conclude with it being the definition of a “derivative work” that could not exist without the original work, and not protected under fair use, shows that this decision was probably paid for or the judge is a bad faith jerkoff

It depends on what the *damage* is to the *author* This is the measure 👍👍👍🇺🇸