|
Btw clean room implementations which is what I guess the tweet is getting at only protects against copyright infringement on software and not patents
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
You are selling the algorithm but you didn't have to use disney content in any identifiable way that's just you being a dummy. Give Mickey a tiny dick
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Btw clean room implementations which is what I guess the tweet is getting at only protects against copyright infringement on software and not patents Also trademark. You can't sell sneakers with a Nike-esque swoosh even if you've never seen their logo in your life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
If your computer draws mickey mouse and you commercialize it, the mouse is gonna loving sue you and win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I mean economic worth thank you for clarifying
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? While euphronius and others have hit the highlights, the key point here (borrowing from patent infringement as analogy, which is exactly what happened in Sony Betamax) is that the machine learning model has "no substantial non-infringing uses"; all it does is produce content that infringes Disney's copyrights. Accordingly, selling the machine learning model is contributory copyright infringement and you are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Do the monkeys have spearguns
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Do the monkeys have spearguns Eventually, one might accidentally fashion one from typewriter parts, so let’s say yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Also you aren't selling an AI that makes Disney cartoons because even leaving aside the lawsuits, how many customers are you going to find? 14 hours after you sell the first copy, someone's going to crack it and start spamming AI-generated Disney cartoons onto Youtube and all the underground copyright-theft video sites etc. and who the gently caress is going to actually pay you to make unlicensed Disney cartoons to compete with people doing it for free? Here's a better one: I create a machine learning AI that generates lawsuits, and also it's self-replicating, and it covers its court fees by mining bitcoin on people's Ring doorbells and Internet of Things thermostats and toasters. Will any nation or state manage to regulate them before they effectively DDOS every courtroom in the world?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also you aren't selling an AI that makes Disney cartoons because even leaving aside the lawsuits, how many customers are you going to find? 14 hours after you sell the first copy, someone's going to crack it and start spamming AI-generated Disney cartoons onto Youtube and all the underground copyright-theft video sites etc. and who the gently caress is going to actually pay you to make unlicensed Disney cartoons to compete with people doing it for free? I have DRM on my copyright infringer thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? The trained machine is itself a derivative work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
Anybody with copyright familiarity? Repost from CC small questions thread: TVsVeryOwn posted:I'm trying to put together my first business card for mainly VJing, but I guess general special events. I just came up with an idea, but I'm not sure where this takes me with regard to copyright and trademark infringement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The trained machine is itself a derivative work. This is certainly the direction that the legal department at my husband’s employer goes. The training corpus is itself somebody’s intellectual property, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
TVsVeryOwn posted:Anybody with copyright familiarity? Repost from CC small questions thread: If you generate the business card with machine learning then it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:This is certainly the direction that the legal department at my husband’s employer goes. The training corpus is itself somebody’s intellectual property, after all. It’s not at all clear that this is the case, though - the legal department is doing risk management, but it’s not at all certain that the rightsholder for training data has any claim on the output of a model. Open question and one with much current debate both as a matter of current law and as a matter of what ought to be. euphronius posted:If you had a million monkeys type for a million years and they, eventually, come up with “the corrections” by Jonathan Franzen you still could not sell it This, on the other hand, is completely wrong. Independent creation is a defense in copyright; to prove copying you need to prove both similarity *and* access. Most frequently comes up in the music context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
I know next to nothing about IP and copyright...so if somebody in Madagascar or whatever can prove they never heard WAP or There’s Some Whores In This House and did a beat by beat production of WAP, they could sell it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I know next to nothing about IP and copyright...so if somebody in Madagascar or whatever can prove they never heard WAP or There’s Some Whores In This House and did a beat by beat production of WAP, they could sell it? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
how can you prove you've never heard a song tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:how can you prove you've never heard a song tho Step one would be, avoid being an opening act for the group that's going to sue you for infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_(instrumental)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It’s not at all clear that this is the case, though - the legal department is doing risk management, but it’s not at all certain that the rightsholder for training data has any claim on the output of a model. Open question and one with much current debate both as a matter of current law and as a matter of what ought to be. My example was very precise and not wrong Edit No wait thinking about it it is wrong euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:how can you prove you've never heard a song tho You don’t need to prove you never heard it, they need to prove you have (or in practice that you could plausibly have heard it). Bunch of recent cases on this where you get random no name songwriters suing claiming that major label releases were ripped off of their works; also a set of screenwriter lawsuits where they claim their slop script was read and used to make a good movie. (Some courts will permit high levels of similarity to be treated as evidence of access to the copyrighted work, which collapses the test and is terrible. But it is copyright law so terrible is par for the course.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
So um is anybody able to answer my actual IP question?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
TVsVeryOwn posted:So um is anybody able to answer my actual IP question? An IP lawyer (TM priority, copyright secondary) you hire to answer the question for you. Consider whether your idea is worth the potential hassle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
TVsVeryOwn posted:So um is anybody able to answer my actual IP question? Your problem isn’t that someone is going to think your business is a show tie-in, it’s that you are potentially tangling with a billion-dollar corporation. Look, Sony’s probably never going to find out, and if they do, they’re probably won’t do anything more than tell you to cease and desist, but if it comes to more than that, good luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
TVsVeryOwn posted:So um is anybody able to answer my actual IP question? Your question crossed the line from general hypothetical into "can you give me legal advice for my situation" which for a number of reasons (firm policies, conflicts, not having all the details) makes all the actual lawyers stay away from answering and respond with "get a lawyer."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Similar to the AI Disney thing. Are animated pornos with Disney likenesses copyright infringement? And/or could you make the argument that since Disney is aggressively not sexual, a sexualized cartoon of a Disney figure must be satire?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
That argument has been tried and lost in 1978’s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates. Porn parody producers have prevailed in other cases, but “Disney characters but they gently caress” isn’t enough. They have to put more passion in their work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That argument has been tried and lost in 1978’s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates. So they need to hire better actors?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 08:18
|
|
|
Umm they’re called “cast members”
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You don’t need to prove you never heard it, they need to prove you have (or in practice that you could plausibly have heard it). Bunch of recent cases on this where you get random no name songwriters suing claiming that major label releases were ripped off of their works; also a set of screenwriter lawsuits where they claim their slop script was read and used to make a good movie. So this is the nugget of fact behind artists refusing to take some rando's demo tape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:So this is the nugget of fact behind artists refusing to take some rando's demo tape. It's also why a lot of authors won't have anything to do with fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Umm they’re called “cast members” Not empty quoting
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
I have numerous lawsuits in the planning stages for the many, many people that have wronged me. One is currently fully under way, and the next one is at the interviewing lawyers stage. I assume it's good idea to tackle these one at a time because opposing counsel will find this out and say "Look, this dude is super loving litigious he doesn't deserve the 1.2m he's asking for"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 13:15
|
|
|
Ask one of your lawyers for legal advice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
If being litigious was a bad thing in this country Donald Trump would be broke and not the president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 14:03
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I have numerous lawsuits in the planning stages for the many, many people that have wronged me. One is currently fully under way, and the next one is at the interviewing lawyers stage. Have you considered inviting them to celebrate Festivus instead?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I have numerous lawsuits in the planning stages for the many, many people that have wronged me. One is currently fully under way, and the next one is at the interviewing lawyers stage. Lawyers are not allowed to introduce (and courts are not allowed to consider) information that's not relevant to the case at hand. That's something where if you didn't already know it, it suggests you're really unprepared. I suggest going to the library and poking around in a few books about lawsuits before writing a bunch of large checks to attorneys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Relevancy is not something I’d expect a lay person to understand
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I have numerous lawsuits in the planning stages for the many, many people that have wronged me. One is currently fully under way, and the next one is at the interviewing lawyers stage. Syncopated posted:Have you considered inviting them to celebrate Festivus instead? euphronius posted:Ask one of your lawyers for legal advice. The legal answer is talk to your lawyer(s) about this because if you have actual claims there may be statutes of limitation involved and you might have incipient filing deadlines you need to be aware of. The practical answer is that most of your wrongs probably lack legal merit because most people don't have actual valid legal claims against that many other people, so if someone says "I want to sue ALL the people" they're probably a nightmare client who just wants to start a lot of fights and has no conception of the actual legal merits of any of their perceived wrongs. So the guy suggesting you invite all your enemies to Festivus is probably suggesting a more practically achievable form of redress. By "nightmare client" of course I mean "if you're poor" ; if you're rich and self-fund all that litigation, GREAT, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Filling a lawsuit against Jane and John Doe 1-500
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 16:36
|
|