this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
483 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

59590 readers
5872 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
483
Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
350 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Spoken by someone who has never had something you've worked years on, be stolen.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spoken like someone who is having trouble admitting they're standing on the shoulders of Giants.

I don't expect a nuanced response from you, nor will I waste time with folks who can't be bothered to respond in any form beyond attack, nor do I expect you to watch this

Intellectual property died with the advent of the internet. It's now just a way for the wealthy to remain wealthy.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/PJSTFzhs1O4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] FormlessMartian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No dude you don’t understand. A copyrighted book is the same as an internet comment.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you said this facetiously... but it literally is.

https://www.howtogeek.com/310158/are-other-people-allowed-to-use-my-tweets/

[–] FormlessMartian@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This may come as a surprise to you but there are internet comments outside of twitter that aren’t protected by twitter rules.

Also you can’t copy the idea of a book and reword it. Which you can do with a tweet.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright isn't Twitter rules...

[–] FormlessMartian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why post a link dealing specifically with twitters terms of use agreement? There is nothing copywritten about this comment. Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing..?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, seems you need help reading. So let me take DIRECT quotes.

As long as you haven’t made your Twitter account private, every thought you broadcast can be seen by anyone in the world. However, any words or photos you Tweet, as long as they are original, are yours and, except in specific circumstances, can’t be used without your permission.

You Retain Copyright (But That's Not the Whole Story)

Copyright law is pretty clear: the text of your Tweets is yours. There are some Fair Use arguments, such as newsworthiness or commentary, that would allow someone to copy and paste the text contents of your Tweet and post it elsewhere, but for the most part, they can’t. The ideas in your Tweets, however, aren’t covered by copyright. Only the exact wording. As the New York Times reports, a Hollywood movie studio can take your idea and turn it into a film starring Rihanna.

”You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content).

So what does all this mean? Well first, Twitter acknowledges your copyright: “What’s your is yours.” They then go on to outline the terms of the license you grant them to use anything you post on Twitter.

I mean That's literally paragraphs worth of content telling you that YOUR CONTENT IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT. The whole of twitters Terms of service is you granting twitter a perpetual license to YOUR CONTENT.

But right... Nothing copyrighted about comment content... and yet they mention it over and over that it is covered? Are you okay?

There is nothing copywritten about this comment.

Yes your comment is covered under copyright. Including the ones you just made.

Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue.

Covered under copyright != how easy it would be to claim damages.

If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing…?

It literally is.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16680/are-comments-posted-on-websites-owned-by-the-website-or-the-commenter

We can even look at this from the opposite direction. Here's a full list of works that cannot be Copyright.

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/works-not-covered-copyright

Notice that "comments on the internet" isn't one of them.

[–] FormlessMartian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Covered under copyright != how easy it would be to claim damages.

Ok so this is the point I’m trying to understand. If there is no recourse for someone to claim damages, in this case as internet comments because otherwise everyone would be claiming damages any time someone ever copied the text of their original comment, then what would even be the point of listing it as something that “cannot be copyrighted”? It’s like saying, well, the text on this post -it note is copyrighted because “text on post-it notes” isn’t listed specifically as works that cannot be copyrighted.

[–] kklusz@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

What was “stolen” from you and how?