Shazbot

My guess is search for toddlers, whose parents handed them a phone to keep busy while they rest or do something else. They're the only demographic that does not know how to spell, or knows too few words to search effectively. But considering the American education system this could also apply to students who are illiterate despite completing the grade every year.

As someone who has spent their life translating for family this isn't surprising. Nor is it any easier when they bring me poorly translated documents and hope I decipher machine diarrhea. The tech is still years behind being real world ready, especially with anything above 6th grade grammar and nuanced word choice that depends on context and sometimes dialect. But free is free so 🤷

The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that's that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim's likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.

Reading these comments has shown me that most users don't realize that not all working artists are using 1099s and filing as an individual. Once you have stable income and assets (e.g. equipment) there are tax and legal benefits to incorporating your business. Removing copyright protections for large corporations will impact successful small artists who just wanted a few tax breaks.

I'm convinced the AI had the hand on a loop. It's like watching someone's first presentation in speech and debate class. It will look better eventually, but I doubt it'll figure out the subtle emphasis great body language adds to speech.

Found an earlier article by El Observador before the legislation passed. Under Uruguay's old laws Spotify, YouTube, an other streaming platforms paid little to nothing in artist royalties. With the new legislation artists will now see fair compensation.

The Guardian does a better job explaining Spotify's problem: do the royalties come from rights holders (I am assuming they're referring to record labels) or the streaming services? The later case they believe will cause them to pay double what they're paying for streaming rights.

The issue just needs to back to Uruguay's government to sort out who pays the artist royalties, or if both labels and streaming share a proportionate responsibility.

The short version is that an actor's AI double, and an AI amalgam of several actors, will be treated as a proxy for the actor(s). The actor can agree or decline the use of their AI proxy based on the scene, and are compensated for use of their likeness as if they had gone in person. It's a pretty big win for actors considering studios wanted unlimited usage for a one time payment.

These are Eldritch servers. It's not bleeding, it's eating. The cables are how it catches prey.

It is pretty idiotic imo that the music industry can ban people from showing song lyrics. Iirc you have to get a license to list song lyrics since they’re technically a copyrighted work.

Here's the thing, if its copyright-able you can get a license for it. Amazon already has licenses to sell and stream music, that part of the usage agreement was already negotiated. A simple analogy would be you want to buy three games from a store, you pay for two but leave with three. Obviously the store is not happy with you. You've shown you're legally compliant with two games, yet took the third without paying.

But there are some interesting caveats in the article:

The lawsuit, which is the first from a music publisher against an AI company over the use of lyrics, was filed in the wake of the Authors Guild — representing a host of prominent fiction authors including George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham — suing OpenAI last month.

This makes sense since lyrics aren't all that different from poetry, and whole albums could be considered a collection of short works. So loosening the copyright protections may give AI companies more data to work with, but it would end up hurting authors (lyricists, screen writers, novelists) and related fields. A real world fallout would be SAG-AFTRA strikers losing royalties and bargaining power, while empowering and enriching the big studios' own AI models.

I wanted to see if Anthropic, the company being sued, has the money on hand to pay for licenses, to square up legally if you will. Well, doesn't look like Anthropic is hurting for cash as of 3rd quarter 2023.

Amazon said on Monday that it’s investing up to $4 billion into the artificial intelligence company Anthropic in exchange for partial ownership and Anthropic’s greater use of Amazon Web Services (AWS), the e-commerce giant’s cloud computing platform.

Even if the licenses were 10 million in total, that would leave 3,990,000,000 on hand; or .0025% of what Amazon offered. I don't see how they'd walk away without settling for the licensing fees and legal expenses. They're financially secure and partially owned by a company that is legally compliant with its own handling of intellectual property.

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.

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.