- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
291·19 days agodeleted by creator
deleted by creator
17·28 days agoI’m an IP attorney. You don’t have copyright over the thing you created with AI as you describe it. Copyright applies only to a minimally original expression by a human at this time.
8·1 month agoI hope the study specifically publishes the data on the Model 3. I bought one before I became much more privacy conscious, but I’ve done my best to mitigate the leakage from that. In doing so, I read through all of Tesla’s terms and conditions upon opt out and sending any of my information or information that can be used to identify or profile me, should never be sold to advertisers. I write software licenses for a living so I’m pretty confident in my reading on this. It would be interesting to see what can currently be mitigated by changing some settings and what cannot.
It is a bit more complicated than that, and the legal motivation from the Copyright Office is different than what you describe.
One of the most informative cases, in my opinion, is the Copyright Office’s back and forth on Zarya of the Dawn. In their view, even thousands of refining prompts cannot be sufficient to convey copyright protection on an AI generated image since it lacks the necessary control and connection to the person. Suryast is another helpful case. I think they’re still very incomplete when you start to consider works like those from Jackson Pollock or, my personal favorite hypo, an artist with a prosthetic that uses statistical machine learning to control the end effector and thus the paintbrush. But those are just hypotheticals for now.
I help chair a conference of IP attorneys and others who specialize in software licensing and AI so we’ve been talking about this for a while now. We actually just had the conference this week so I can probably share some resources or presentations if people really want to get nerdy about it.
I wouldn’t say it is too far out of date, having just gone through all of it in the past few months. That said, Bazzell does provide a lot of smaller updates in his Unredacted magazine articles. I believe he said he is no longer planning to update the book because he couldn’t afford to take the time since the book was being torrented a bit too much (I might be misrembering). Either way, his magazine is really good too. I became a big fan of his after that first book.
For anyone unfamiliar, I strongly recommend Michael Bazzell’s book Extreme Privacy for a fantastic entry into this world. It covers much more than your typical OPSEC stuff, but it is thorough, well written, and fun to learn about.
I just realized that the guy selling all of these surveillance cameras has the same name as the CIA headquarters. The writers of this reality are too damn lazy.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My article was about how copyright law actually supports projects like PhotoCraft and ArtCraft (the software that reverse engineered Photoshop and other adobe products) and REA because, under current law (which is a long case review), clean rooming is okay. It goes back to the Compaq case and a few others. It relies on the idea that copyright protects expression, not function, and if you put a team of lawyers in a room with software and they purely describe the function of the software, and they hand that document to a team of engineers, that is fine under copyright law because it breaks the chain of expression. There’s much more detail, but my argument is that AI clean rooming projects are good for consumers in this regard, but that software patents for would be used more expansively in the coming years to counter those products. And so on and so forth. There are like eight more steps and guesses after that, but that was the gist.
As a personal thing, I agree with your conclusions for the most part. I just think there’s a lot more to consider in getting there. The road is much more complex than most people give it credit for.