@trevbaylis
No part of my uploads to bsky.social may be used or reproduced in any manner for purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems. © Trevor K Baylis. All rights reserved.
Reply brief sent!
This case was always going to end up at the Ninth Circuit eventually. This reply brief may be the most important document of the whole case and saga. As mention previously there is a lack of "subject matter jurisdiction" re: Finnish Ruling & 9th circuit should simply confirm that.
Really there's an app for going to the toilet? Blimey they can digitize anything these days! ;P
So how does it work? Some quantum wormhole appears in the screen or something?
[ Now there's a tech for the future! - Patent pending!!]
Wait wut?
All AI Outputs are authorless. There is no author to attach the rights to. Lack of copyright is also "automatic without formality."
There is no licensing value in AI gen outputs especially now as SCOTUS in the US killed off the AI Gen copyrightabilty issue.
It's stupid to allow AI gen to use copyrighted works to create outputs that lack copyright and cannot be licensed.
AI Gen is fundamentally worthless to creative industries.
They say:
- the government must not weaken copyright law, and should instead strengthen licensing, transparency & enforcement
- the government should stop prioritising large multinational tech firms
3/5
The input images have nothing actually to do with controlling the AI gen itself. It's software function just uses algorithms to detect where to place pixels. The input images are just "methods of operation" and turned into text (code) for the AI software to function. It's clever but not authorship.
Based your info, the ones on the left are original works and copyrighted.
The ones on the right are derivative an author-less so cannot be protected.
The ones on the left can be registered at USCO. The ones on the right have to be disclaimed as AI generated and cannot be registered.
Originality as in"novelty" is not copyright law so it's not possible to prevent people independently coming up with the same melody as as someone else did.
AI use has to be disclaimed though. Therefore what ever is left after taking out all the ai stuff is what get copyright. Not the whole work.
Also "novelty" is not part of copyright law. Two things can be similar and both have copyright.
You can't protect open source works in any case if you are not the *original author at the beginning of the title chain*.
It means a "derivative author" - those that build upon others work - doesn't have standing to protect that work themselves.
Non-exclusive licensees cannot claim exclusive rights.
Guadamuz is having an aneurysm.
Characters are not copyrightable initially in any case. They need delineation in a larger work to get beyond just being a stock character. Fan work lacks protection by the fan artist.
Unauthorized derivatives can't be protected "in any part".
(Anderson v Stallone).
US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material By Blake Brittain.
www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
Disclaimer: I don't condone violence. I don't condone it but if you come at me wearing a pair of those glasses...
They are literally an invitation to a punch in the face. I mean nerds are already, arguably, subject to bullying. Why invite more bullying?
How much more nerd could a person be wearing those? How much more deserving of a punch in the face?!
AI models from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and xAI can reproduce entire novels from memory. Researchers extracted 95.8% of Harry Potter from Claude nearly word for word. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 3 didn't even require bypassing safeguards - they just kept writing. arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671
Technollame is utterly clueless about how the creative industry actual works.
There is no copyright in AI Gen outputs and "selection and arrangement" doesn't provide exclusivity.
AI Gen is worthless to creative professionals - [Source - a creative professional]
There would be no copyright protection in the resulting film because it would be author-less.
It means that such a film would be commercially worthless.
Google funds Internet Archive's web scraping tools.
That's the wrong question.
A film in a cinema is "publicly available" but it's not free because it requires purchasing a cinema ticket.
AI Platforms require downloading of copyrighted works and storing them on hard drives BEFORE any training.
That is a criminal level infringement of copyright.
That's what Google would say too.
Google funds Internet Archive's web scraping tools.
It's not the friendly cuddly organization you think it is because it leads to a corporate take over of everyone's data.
Google funds Internet Archive's web scraping tools.
So it's Google's copyright violations that publishers are attempting to protect themselves from.
You are just falling for Google's corporate take over data.
It means that "share and share alike" has become a way for corporations to take people's stuff for free.
It is now no longer a nice noble ethos for the benefit of research.
It has become criminal level white collar crime.
This is very insightful.
IMO, what has also happened is that the noble quest of software devs to share their work for "research" has became usurped by tech companies commercializing the open source ethos, taking free IP and then enriching themselves.
Google indirectly funds CC and Internet Archive.
How many times, in how many contexts, in how many ways am I going to have to say that this is what "AI" does— what it fundamentally *is*— before it sinks in? That all Bullshit engines do is statistically correlate training data & inputs via their weights to produce outputs you are likely to accept…
Your premise is wrong. The downloading of millions of works works pre-training creates a "reproduction" of those works which is obviously *identical* rather than just substantially similar.
The questions is really "access" to the copyrighted works. Thus one must prove access to the copied work.
Copyright isn't broken. Most layperson's view has been shaped by myths related to corporate ownership. It's "work for hire" that strips rights away from people and gives it to corps. But then so does Open Source. Google funds Creative Commons using code for free enriching Google further.
Theft was part of the plan from the get-go. Founders of AI companies decided collectively that copyright law didn't matter because they needed our data to feed their monster. They knew it would come out one day. The mindset of arrogance and disregard of law is baffling... and here we are.
