ram

joined 1 year ago
[–] ram@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bud light wasn't canceled, it was boycotted.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In some cases it took people 2 to 4 days to release a working version without Denuvo

2 to 4 days? How about months and counting? Not to mention many Denuvo protected games are only playable through Switch emulation, something that might end soon.

[–] ram@feddit.nl -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd be surprised if there WASN'T reliable data that confirms a significant loss in sales if they launched without Denuvo.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago
[–] ram@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Here's a video of someone actually building something like that to play a chess match.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're putting too much importance into this matter. If this is distressing you should let it go and think about something else.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Dude, chill. Even if you're right, having a meltdown on github doesn't help anybody. Go outside and take a breath.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago

What I'd really like to have is a tool that lists blocked communities. That information is not as public as defederated instances.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

It works for me.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.

It seems that's not the case, no matter how much effort or time you expend on the prompts. This is from the Copyright Office:

The Office does not question Ms. Kashtanova’s contention that she expended significant time and effort working with Midjourney. But that effort does not make her the “author” of Midjourney images under copyright law. Courts have rejected the argument that “sweat of the brow” can be a basis for copyright protection in otherwise unprotectable material.18 The Office “will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work” because they “have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.”

Here's another key factor:

Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them. The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.

This only applies to an image generated with AI prompts that isn't significantly altered by an artist.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

Here's the Copyright Office's response for anyone interested.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.

view more: ‹ prev next ›