1144
Is Windows FOSS now? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
214 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059523957674208

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 8 months ago* (8 children)

Er, no - about it not being public domain. That's the claim you made that has been shown to be false. Trying to make it about AI being bad is the walking back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    AI Slop is not Public Domain. My statements have been consistent about that and remain true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    Aight and the proof already provided shows that it is in fact considered to be in the public domain, which proves you're wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    May I see it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You already responded to it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I'm not going to go fishing around for the case you and technician are referring to, but if it's anything like OP's links then it doesn't say what you're claiming it says and/or isn't nearly as broad and all encompassing as you describe. I don't live in a nation ruled by the blog/tabloid "synthtopia".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    I mean sure you can ignore the court ruling, but here's the copyright office's guidance (which they also provided later in an edit) and it clarifies that AI generated work is not eligible for copyright

    When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.[31]
    As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.[32]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    You're the second person I've replied to about that, but they give only two examples of image generation which were denied for claiming to contain absolutely no human authorship which can be considered subjective by the courts as digital camera output is copyrightable based on who presses the button, the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter, and also since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law.

    Until the laws clarify I say treat AI code as radioactive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    That person was also me, funnily enough!

    since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law

    Buddy, patents are public domain. That's the whole point of a patent.

    As part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor, patents are published into the public domain.

    the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter

    No they don't - they've published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent