It really depends on what the site's terms of service/usage agreement says about the content posted on the site.
For example a site like Art Station has users agree to a usage license that lets them host and transmit the images in their portfolios. However there is no language saying the visitors are also granted these rights. So you may be able to collect the site text for fair use, but the art itself requires reaching out for anything other than personal/educational use.
I don't blame you. Even in a professional setting tagging is mind numbing and tedious. The only difference is without tagging you might miss an image that can be licensed and the business opportunity that needed it.
They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat it.
Again?! We're dealing with Oakland PD having on-duty sex again?! We're not even 10 years from the Celeste Guap fiasco:
I get it--candidate shortage, need to field the dept. But we cannot permit this behavior any more. The city budget is not the settlement piggy bank. At some point we need to separate the government and the tax payers from the actions of the individual. If Officer Rapey wants to break the law, Officer Rapey can find his own lawyer and deal with his own consequences.
Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals? What issues and solutions do you see that aren't addressed? I understand I'm an outsider looking in on this issue, avoiding the mentality ill homeless like many others. But if my vote can go towards a better solutions I'd like to learn about them.
If we apply the current ruling of the US Copyright Office then the prompt writer cannot copyright if AI is the majority of the final product. AI itself is software and ineligible for copyright; we can debate sentience when we get there. The researchers are also out as they simply produce the tool--unless you're keen on giving companies like Canon and Adobe spontaneous ownership of the media their equipment and software has created.
As for the artists the AI output is based upon, we already have legal precedent for this situation. Sampling has been a common aspect of the music industry for decades now. Whenever an musician samples work from others they are required to get a license and pay royalties, by an agreed percentage/amount based on performance metrics. Photographers and film makers are also required to have releases (rights of a person's image, the likeness of a building) and also pay royalties. Actors are also entitled to royalties by licensing out their likeness. This has been the framework that allowed artists to continue benefiting from their contributions as companies min-maxed markets.
Hence Shutterstock's terms for copyright on AI images is both building upon legal precedent, and could be the first step in getting AI work copyright protection: obtaining the rights to legally use the dataset. The second would be determining how to pay out royalties based on how the AI called and used images from the dataset. The system isn't broken by any means, its the public's misunderstanding of the system that makes the situation confusing.
There's one that comes to mind: registration of works with the Copyright Office. When submitting a body of work you need to ensure that you've got everything in order. This includes rights for models/actors, locations, and other media you pull from. Having AI mixed in may invalidate the whole submission. It's cheaper to submit related work in bulk, a fair amount of Loki materials could be in limbo until the application is amended or resubmitted.
Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.
The advertising angle is likely what sank their case. Proving the food does not meet a technical specification, like not having a quarter pound of beef in a fully cooked patty, is easier to prove. But advertising has always been hyperbole.
This is your daily reminder to engage and boost Twitter alternatives such as Mastodon. It's not enough to ignore Twitter. We must build communities to draw in users, show them social media can exist without Elon or Zuck. Only when good alternatives exist, with content and people sought after, do users feel safe to abandon old platforms.
Only if it were human births, we could go with some kind of worm to prevent the suffering of countless people.
Gas! Gas! Gas! I gonna step on the gas!