Methylman

I'm not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to 'use' the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky..

If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it's just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing

Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, "but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

It's right on the courts' info page

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.

I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr's paper "Death of the AI Author"; quoting from the abstract:

Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this 'thing' is not an author of the works then it can't infringe either?

You know people drink water too right? It's not just a backdrop for your selfies lol

https://mylemmy.win/post/89871

Any instance admin, proper or rogue, gets a ton of information that users won’t normally see.

clerics

Unsure if intended? You probably meant clerks

But then again clerics also works since they probably do worship capitalism as if it were a religion

Couldn't help looking it up - so satisfied that it's called a lounge of lizards

Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words "domestic" law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING ~~enforcing laws~~ on domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to "provide" resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to 'not providing/actually removing' resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have..

All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters.. for better or for worse

Edit for clarity

Yes - same way Trump couldn't send in the military and had to rely on states' national guards to clear protesters before that infamous photo-op in front of the church

I've always had the opinion that anyone who can't handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don't see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule