[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In most experimental work, the artist does make a direct contribution to some key elements of the work, for example framing or background. Which is all that's necessary, you can still obtain copyright over something that is only partially under your control.

If an artist gives up all direct control over an experimental work - such as the infamous monkey selfie - then I think they should no longer be able to copyright it.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

So if someone asks you to paint something and gives you detailed instructions about what they want to see in your painting, do you think they should have copyright over your work?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

It's not a matter of intelligence or sentience. The key question is whether the output of a prompt is fully predictable by the person who gave the prompt.

The behavior of a paintbrush, mouse, camera, or robot arm is predictable. The output of a prompt is not (at least, not predictable by the person who gave the prompt).

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

After her trial, maybe she will move in.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Classify them however you want, they have nothing to do with your eligibility for health insurance.

In fact, ACA health plans must enroll anyone who wants to enroll. They cannot decline an individual renewal. A premium can only be adjusted according to age and tobacco use. And they cannot charge old people more than three times what they charge young people.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They aren't reasonable possibilities, because Medicare covers everyone over 65 regardless of their medical history and ACA health insurance plans are required to enroll all applicants regardless of age or medical history.

The latter can raise your premium if you smoke tobacco. That's literally the only power of "coercion" they have available. All your other choices are off-limits.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In the US, you can't be denied health insurance based on your medical history. Thanks, Obama! No really, thank you.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If some library decided to infringe copyright then it could most certainly be sued for compensation under the Takings Clause.

Government has a Constitutional obligation to pay for any private property it takes, whether it's land for a new building or intellectual property.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

First of all, nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review. They sort of made up that power all by themselves.

Regardless, if Congress decided to regulate the SCOTUS then they would most likely strip jurisdiction only from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts. This is also how it was done in the past. The SCOTUS basically conceded that as long as some judge still had the power of judicial review, then Congress could remove the SCOTUS itself from the process.

Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether the Constitution allows their colleagues in the SCOTUS to be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's like saying you don't recommend Linux because you disagree with Linus Torvalds. Using Lemmy or Linux does not advance any particular political agenda. And for the record, I like kbin.

You know what does potentially advance a communist agenda? Buying a phone made in China. Which phones do you recommend?

view more: ‹ prev next ›

FlowVoid

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago