this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
122 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
455 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[citation needed]

As I already said, fair use is generally not granted when it entails competition with the original work. See above regarding movie reviews vs copying an entire film.

It has nothing in common with it.

Legally, property is something that has an owner. IP has an owner, and like other types of property it can be transferred to another owner and become the subject of contracts.

IP cannot be "stolen", and I never said it could be. Real estate cannot be "stolen" either, yet real estate is still property.

That's all an AI needs in order to get trained on something. They just need to see it.

For someone who thinks other people are "weird" about legal language, you keep making the same mistakes.

When people "see" something, they do not need to create a copy of it in the legal sense. When I look at an old photograph, legally I do not create a copy of the photograph.

AI do not "just see" data. They need access to an electronic copy of the data. An AI cannot "see" an old photograph unless they first create a local copy of the photograph. There is a significant legal difference.