Well that’s fucked. If I donate my body to science, it certianly isnt so my skull can sit in some dudes living room
Well that’s fucked. If I donate my body to science, it certianly isnt so my skull can sit in some dudes living room
I typed “cartoons” and “animation” in the search bar, toggled to search all instances. Most of what I got were 4-panel comic stories
It didn’t come up when I search for it for some reason, but it seems so
Theres several reasons
Part of it is good old fashioned bigotry
A big part of it is the systemic advantage the Electoral College gives Republicans
And of course there’s the matter that Traitor Trump voters don’t have standards while the rest of us do
It used to just be called blacklisting pfc
Tbf, there was a WWII instructional film that taught “how to get killed”, but that was sarcastic (and about the Pacific theater)
If you arent calling it mickey mouse, it would actually be fine from a copyright perspective. What youd get sued for is the character design itself being too similar, which is a trademark/IP issue
The law being violated there is trademark, not copyright
But what it outputs IS transformative, which- of course- is the e primary use
Transformation is in itself fair use is the thing. Ytp doesnt need to be parody or critique or anything else, because its fundamentally no longer the same product as whatever the source was as a direct result of editing
I posted this in a thread, but Im gonna make it a parent comment for those who support this bill.
Consider youtube poop, Im serious. Every clip in them is sourced from preexisting audio and video, and mixed or distorted in a comedic format. You could make an AI to make youtube poops using those same clips and other “poops” as training data. What it outputs might be of lower quality (less funny), but in a technical sense it would be made in an identical fashion. And, to the chagrin of Disney, Nintendo, and Viacom, these are considered legally distinct entities; because I dont watch Frying Nemo in place of Finding Nemo. So why would it be any different when an AI makes it?
Consider youtube poop, Im serious. Everyclip in them is sourced from preexisting audio and video, and mixed or distorted in a comedic format. You could make an AI to make youtube poops using those same clips and other “poops” as training data. What it outputs might be of lower quality, but in a technical sense it would be made in an identical fashion. And, to the chagrin of Disney, Nintendo, and Viacom, these are considered legally distinct entities; because I dont watch Frying Nemo in place of Finding Nemo. So why would it be any different when an AI makes it?
What of the images random people generate from software like dall e? Those are made from the same training data, and what this poicy does to them is make media creation more inaccessible even though the technology exists. Also, copying a book word for word by hand isnt/wasnt plagarism, its unlicensed duplication. Plagarism would be changing just the proper nouns and pretending like its a completely seperate book
Most everyone from corporations to tumblr artists will be opting into that. While it doesnt guarantee an information dystopia, it does enable it
I download images from the internet and remove watermarks to edit them in youtube videos as visual aid. I add a credit to the description because Im not a cunt, I just do it to make the video look better. I dont monetize content. Utterly and totally harmless, and would be illegal with such a label
Whos Tom Servo
Didnt need a study to tell you this. They may as well be bots for all the critical thinking they got
I feel bad for a drawing of a laptop with a face
It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech
Can I see dislikes tho?