Shazbot

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.

The short version is that there are two images and sidecar/xmp file sandwiched into one file. First is the standard dynamic range image, what you’d expect to see from a jpeg. Second is the gain map, an image whose contents include details outside of SDR. The sidecar/xmp file has instructions on how to blend the two images together to create a consistent HDR image across displays.

So its HDR-ish enough for the average person. I like this solution, especially after seeing the hellscape that is DSLR raw format support.

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.

They may be thinking of the lobbying done by AIPAC to influence the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

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.

They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat 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.

This is your daily reminder to engage and boost Twitter alternatives such as Mastodon. It’s not enough to ignore Twitter. We must build communities to draw in users, show them social media can exist without Elon or Zuck. Only when good alternatives exist, with content and people sought after, do users feel safe to abandon old platforms.

Only if it were human births, we could go with some kind of worm to prevent the suffering of countless people.

Don’t forget your manpower is limited. No one is a lemmy.world employee and people need sleep. That leaves 8 hours in a day for literally everything else a person needs/wants to do. Having one service that just works is a load off an all volunteer team’s back.

Let’s break down some of the confusion you’re experiencing.

• When it comes to buildings there is indeed copyright on the building itself. The question is did you get a usage license from the owner to photograph the building for your purposes? For example if I were to get a written usage license for the lighting of the Eiffel Tower at night, and a location permit from the city I would be able to photograph it. This is common in commercial photography with contracts known as property releases.
• Theft in regards to photography usually means taking photographs of classified or trade secrets. General photographing of buildings in public spaces would not qualify as theft but copyright violation as per the previous example.

If you want to learn more you can google “photography usage rights” or “photography license agreement” and deep dive the untold number of blog posts about it. You can check out this blog post for a crash course if you need good starting point.

If books are more your fancy there’s Nancy Wolff’s The Professional Photographer’s Legal Handbook and the American Society of Media Photographer’s Professional Business Practices in Photography; both are pretty old but a very easy to understand. John Harrington’s Best Business Practices for Photographers also goes into detail and is more recent, but very broad in what it covers. Technically, there’s the demo for fotobiz X which will let you make a sample contract from their templates.

I’m sure you’ll find more resources but these books were my go-tos when I was working as a photographer. If you feel like socializing you check out your local APA (American Photographic Artists) or ASMP (American Society of Photographic Artists) chapters. Not sure if membership is still a requirement for attending events but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

They do have intelligence, but that intelligence is deliberately underfunded to prevent this very situation. It’s impossible to navigate the mountains of paperwork and legal loopholes the ultra-wealthy use with so few hands. That’s why poorer filers get audited more often: less leg work, easier wins, at the expense of real revenue and justice against tax evaders.

Somebody once told me

The Borg are gonna roll me

I ain’t the sharpest tool in the Delta

So how do we correct this? I ask because we have a strong push for nuclear as a cleaner energy source, but we know energy providers have a spotty history with safety. If we’re going to take this route then we should have some reliable plans in place to decontaminate when the need arises.

Most important paragraph in the whole article:

The Southern District of New York court issued its final order in Hachette v. Internet Archive on March 24, 2023. It found that Internet Archive was liable for copyright infringement. The consent judgement of August 11 has banned the Open Library from scanning or distributing commercially available books in digital formats.

The premise of the Internet Archive is perfectly legal, but we have dimwits who think anything and everything can be uploaded for “archival purposes”. This won’t be the last time we see this because people are actively abusing the site.

Don’t believe me? Go to the archive and search “anime”. Are the first results you see forgotten 1960s shows whose only source materials are moldy VHS tapes because the studio went under and the copyright is in limbo? No. The entirety of fucking Naruto, iconic movies like Ghost in the Shell, the whole remastered Dragon Ball Blu-ray set, and who knows how much more.

No, just because it’s not available where you are does not justify uploading. If geo-blocking doesn’t work for a monolith like YouTube it certainly won’t work for the Archive. One visit from copyright owners lawyers in their territory and it’s another black eye for the Archive.

The archive is in the right for works that are out of print AND, AND, I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, have no commercial equivalent or rightful copyright owner. Those old cookbooks by authors and publishers long gone, great! Vintage DOS games, do some reseach, make sure it’s not commercially available on sites like GOG before uploading. A fan subbed show, upload the subtitles only. Your favorite show that is streamable but you won’t pay for, put it on a tracker and seed it elsewhere.

I wouldn’t advise it. We don’t want to set precedent that you can shovel garbage at whatever federated site you disagree with. It would be funny to append all Threads requests with Zuckerberg photoshopped as neckbeard Cesar. It’s less funny when bad actors use unsuspecting users to spread misinformation or bigotry.