Scribe
Legend
Fair use till you try to sell it, right?
If you drew it yourself? Yep.
Fair use till you try to sell it, right?
You’re talking about people. You’re saying that people are disposable and replaceable. You say you desire the ‘destruction’ of 90% of the population. You tell us your dream is to burn other peoples’ livelihoods to the ground.And why should I care about businesses? They don't care about me. or about anyone. And they're disposable and replacable.
Regulation to protect the consumer. Or to protect people from businesses. Yes.And that is why we need regulation. Thank you for giving me the basis of the point.
No I said that businesses are disposible and replacable. Businesses are not people. Business is the opposite of life and humanity.You’re talking about people. You’re saying that people are disposable and replaceable. You say you desire the ‘destruction’ of 90% of the population. You tell us your dream is to burn other peoples’ livelihoods to the ground.
No offence, dude, but you sound like a sociopath. Tyler Durden wasn’t the hero of that film. I think you took away the wrong message.
Regulation to protect the consumer. Or to protect people from businesses. Yes.
But not regulation on people.
3) Businesses are made of shareholders (people with the money) and stakeholders (people who rely on the business) When the business fails, the stakeholders suffer while the shareholders remain unharmed or even make more money than before.Two things:
1) Businesses are made of people. There are no business decisions made or actions taken that aren't ultimately made by people.
2) You don't have to be a business to harm others.
Circular argument. You're attempting to convince that it should be fair use, you can't do that assuming it's already covered by fair use.Seems simple enough. If Collecting the material and using it to create an AI is deemed fair use then that places no further obligation on them to enforce how others use the ai. This is the ai is a tool philosophy.
IANAL, but I think this case will ultimately go against Disney. If I understand the case correctly, their problem is that the AI can make perfect new illustrations (not copies) of Disney characters.
A sufficiently talented human could do the same and Disney could do nothing against them so long as they were making the illustrations strictly for their own personal use.
On the other hand, the current legal/judicial environment in the US is more favorable to corporations, so I don't know.
so I made this over at nightcafe using the prompt "Darth Vader with hands on hips while wearing mickey mouse ears"I wonder if AI makers, trainers, and/or owners will get slapped with a royalty fee paid out to copyright holders like digital recorders and digital media do. The pool of potentially infringed creators is many orders of magnitude larger than just musicians, though...
IANAL, but I think this case will ultimately go against Disney. If I understand the case correctly, their problem is that the AI can make perfect new illustrations (not copies) of Disney characters. A sufficiently talented human could do the same and Disney could do nothing against them so long as they were making the illustrations strictly for their own personal use.