Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

    • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      Spoken like someone who is having trouble admitting they’re standing on the shoulders of Giants.

      I don’t expect a nuanced response from you, nor will I waste time with folks who can’t be bothered to respond in any form beyond attack, nor do I expect you to watch this

      Intellectual property died with the advent of the internet. It’s now just a way for the wealthy to remain wealthy.

        • FormlessMartian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          03·
          1 year ago

          This may come as a surprise to you but there are internet comments outside of twitter that aren’t protected by twitter rules.

          Also you can’t copy the idea of a book and reword it. Which you can do with a tweet.

            • FormlessMartian@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              1 year ago

              Then why post a link dealing specifically with twitters terms of use agreement? There is nothing copywritten about this comment. Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing…?

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                Okay, seems you need help reading. So let me take DIRECT quotes.

                As long as you haven’t made your Twitter account private, every thought you broadcast can be seen by anyone in the world. However, any words or photos you Tweet, as long as they are original, are yours and, except in specific circumstances, can’t be used without your permission.

                You Retain Copyright (But That’s Not the Whole Story)

                Copyright law is pretty clear: the text of your Tweets is yours. There are some Fair Use arguments, such as newsworthiness or commentary, that would allow someone to copy and paste the text contents of your Tweet and post it elsewhere, but for the most part, they can’t. The ideas in your Tweets, however, aren’t covered by copyright. Only the exact wording. As the New York Times reports, a Hollywood movie studio can take your idea and turn it into a film starring Rihanna.

                ”You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content).

                So what does all this mean? Well first, Twitter acknowledges your copyright: “What’s your is yours.” They then go on to outline the terms of the license you grant them to use anything you post on Twitter.

                I mean That’s literally paragraphs worth of content telling you that YOUR CONTENT IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT. The whole of twitters Terms of service is you granting twitter a perpetual license to YOUR CONTENT.

                But right… Nothing copyrighted about comment content… and yet they mention it over and over that it is covered? Are you okay?

                There is nothing copywritten about this comment.

                Yes your comment is covered under copyright. Including the ones you just made.

                Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue.

                Covered under copyright != how easy it would be to claim damages.

                If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing…?

                It literally is.

                https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16680/are-comments-posted-on-websites-owned-by-the-website-or-the-commenter

                We can even look at this from the opposite direction. Here’s a full list of works that cannot be Copyright.

                https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/works-not-covered-copyright

                Notice that “comments on the internet” isn’t one of them.