The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can’t counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know. He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

      This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

      • ParkingPsychology@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know.

        Sure you can. You can also win any argument by replying “no you”. You just don’t leave a very good impression if you do that.

        He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

        This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

        It’s probably just going to fall under existing law and the owner of the AI replaces the owner of the copy that was made (so same laws, no exception). Not sure what law that is exactly, but I assume it involves royalties and the like and there’s an exception for certain things, like news and maybe art.

        Here’s an article on it from the perspective of painting. I don’t see why it would any different if it’s an AI “painter”. It’s still technically painting what it does.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning your AI generated likeness, it will now be up to the courts as to which rights supercede the others and until then the law will be abused.

        You effectively no longer have any guaranteed control of the distribution of your AI likeness.

        • CileTheSane@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “there’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning a drawing of your likeness…”

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            We’re talking specifically about AI generated content because that’s what the court case in the article ruled on, stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

            • CileTheSane@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

              Translation: “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument so I’m going to pretend it’s off topic.”

              If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. “You clearly don’t understand” just screams that you don’t have any foundational arguments for your claims.

              You want to us to stay on topic?

              Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

              A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald’s and Disney and they will lose easily.

              “The courts have declared I don’t own the copyright for this” is not a defense for using protected images.

                • CileTheSane@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Just catching up to the where I was in the first place? The argument you were so insistent was wrong and proved I “Didn’t understand”?

                  • Cabrio@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    See, that’s what happens when you leave for 4 hours, conversations move on, people learn things.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because (autonomous) ai works cant be copyrighted doesnt mean it cant infringe on copy right.

      But it does bring to mind who would be the offender?

    • Pseu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Copyright is not ownership. You can own something, but not hold the copyright to it.

      Personality rights are also not copyright and as the ruling was not about personality rights, it did not affect these rights (where they exist in the US). Disregarding both AI and the recent ruling, if someone takes a photograph of you, you do not hold the copyright to it, the photographer does. If the photographer then does something with that image that harms your reputation you may be able to sue.

      And no, it is unlikely that there is a distinction between one’s likeness and “AI generated likeness,” it usually doesn’t matter if you use a photograph or a drawing of an individual, it is the identity that is protected regardless of what tool was used.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.”

        I can commercialise your AI generated likeness freely under the new laws.