Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.
These models are just a collection of observations in relation to each other. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.
It does not and I specifically deleted my comment because I knew someone like you was going to repeat the same arguments you people keep repeating ad-nauseam. I’ve read all of it and you jumping into conclusions about me only says anything about you. There are problematic uses and there are issues that should be discussed and taken into consideration, but conflating a specific use for a tool to be the only use case to make a case for banning the entire tool is pretty shitty.
The only thing this ruling really says is “AIs are not legal persons and copyright can only be held by legal persons.” Which is not particularly unexpected or useful when deciding other issues being raised by copyrighting AI outputs.
Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.
deleted by creator
These models are just a collection of observations in relation to each other. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It does not and I specifically deleted my comment because I knew someone like you was going to repeat the same arguments you people keep repeating ad-nauseam. I’ve read all of it and you jumping into conclusions about me only says anything about you. There are problematic uses and there are issues that should be discussed and taken into consideration, but conflating a specific use for a tool to be the only use case to make a case for banning the entire tool is pretty shitty.
The only thing this ruling really says is “AIs are not legal persons and copyright can only be held by legal persons.” Which is not particularly unexpected or useful when deciding other issues being raised by copyrighting AI outputs.