US patent and copyright law is pretty clear that it exists to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” The idea is to give people some legal protection to encourage people to share what they create.
“AI” is not a person. It can’t receive copyright protections. It’s essentially a word and image producing machine. No one gets copyrights for what it produces because no person is controlling what comes out. Sure, someone writes a prompt. But, they can’t, with any certainty—make changes that yield intentional changes in the output.
Contrast with a camera. The camera is a machine that produces an image. The photographer has control over the exposure, lighting, subject, scene, etc. They can use their creativity and ingenuity to produce specific effects.
Think of any machine that produces something. Does the operator have creative control over what comes out? You can’t copyright a shot of espresso, a potato pulled up from the dirt or a particular car rolling off the assembly line no matter how you prompt those machines.
You could use a backhoe, a machine gun, a supersoaker, a whisk, a rotary phone or an oven to make art but it matters what the intention is, what control you have and how transformative it is.
“AI” prompting simply doesn’t meet standard for creative works.
Now, you can take the output from that and create something. That, depending on how transformative your changes are, may be eligible for copyright protection. An image made into a poster with manually added text, image adjustments, edits, etc. could get copyright protection while the original image still does not.
It’s a solvent that can dissolve a lot of stuff. This may make the part seem lubricated at first but
it shouldn’t be used as a lubricant. It attracts dust that will, eventually, gum things up.
They’re both performances of a sort: the 2000s protagonist is performing for his blog’s audience, so the tone is chatty and personal. The 1800s protagonist, with the mind of a Georgian diarist, is performing for posterity, so he philosophizes.
That’s exactly what’s happening. If you read the author’s explanation, around 1250 is when English starts picking the up the Latin and French loan words that modern English speakers are used to.
English is a Germanic language. So, without the loan words, it is very much more like German.
Doubt it, there would have been a lawsuit and Moderna would have won.
This whole debacle was Vinay Prasad’s doing and he wasn’t at this last meeting with Moderna. It’s likely he was not allowed to go. He’s a fucking idiot and keeps fucking up. They had a month to grant Moderna a meeting after rejecting them. They scheduled it within a week. They know they fucked up.
A verifiable Christian publicly pointing out that Trump and most Republicans aren’t real Christians is possibly one of the most damaging attacks that can be made against them.
Losing Christians—even just to apathy—would be the death of the Republican Party. Conservatives have courted, manipulated and used Christian righteousness to get where they are today. They need them.
It’s why Peter Thiel is talking about the antichrist. The American conservative engine runs on holier-than-thou, righteous indignation.
US patent and copyright law is pretty clear that it exists to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” The idea is to give people some legal protection to encourage people to share what they create.
“AI” is not a person. It can’t receive copyright protections. It’s essentially a word and image producing machine. No one gets copyrights for what it produces because no person is controlling what comes out. Sure, someone writes a prompt. But, they can’t, with any certainty—make changes that yield intentional changes in the output.
Contrast with a camera. The camera is a machine that produces an image. The photographer has control over the exposure, lighting, subject, scene, etc. They can use their creativity and ingenuity to produce specific effects.
Think of any machine that produces something. Does the operator have creative control over what comes out? You can’t copyright a shot of espresso, a potato pulled up from the dirt or a particular car rolling off the assembly line no matter how you prompt those machines.
You could use a backhoe, a machine gun, a supersoaker, a whisk, a rotary phone or an oven to make art but it matters what the intention is, what control you have and how transformative it is.
“AI” prompting simply doesn’t meet standard for creative works.
Now, you can take the output from that and create something. That, depending on how transformative your changes are, may be eligible for copyright protection. An image made into a poster with manually added text, image adjustments, edits, etc. could get copyright protection while the original image still does not.