EmptySlime

Skeet Shooting if you will

My wife is the same way. Not ginger that we can tell but the pain meds and anxiety are pretty similar. She's gotta throw back a full Klonopin to not have ridiculous anxiety in the dentist and still needs multiple vials of numbing to do anything. Took her forever to find a dentist that actually listened to her about the Novocaine not working well and to actually get proper numbed before dental work.

My wife is incredibly resistant to Novocaine. She's gotta arrive at the dentist just after throwing back a Klonopin and even then her most recent bit of dental work required a total of SIX VIALS on increasingly stronger Novocaine.

But then she'll get general anesthesia and not even get through half the pediatric dose before she's knocked out way longer than recovery would expect despite being almost 5'11" and weighing like 190lbs. Like when she was ordering her wedding dress the people making it thought she was trolling because there's no way her shoulders were as wide as she said they were. Iirc she had to provide a picture of her taking the measurements so they could see that she wasn't trolling or measuring wrong.

She's also a super lightweight with alcohol so it's like if it crosses the blood brain barrier she's fucking done and if not she's a walking tank.

Yeah you're right about the derivative works thing. I glossed over it mostly because that seemed pretty much useless to me in the realm of visual art. But I suppose there are a few scenarios where that ability to get protection is meaningful.

Either way, I can't see a way that this would have been good for anyone if this guy got what he wanted.

I'm pretty sure that he wanted to go this route so he could have automatic copyright ownership of literally anything people using his AI generator prompted from it. There's already ways that artists can take AI output and pretty easily make it something that can get copyright protection. It really seems like he was just angling to own by default anything that is generated using his AI.

Eh I think it would have been worse if this guy won. To my knowledge he was trying to get the AI to be considered the author and then himself to be the owner of the copyright via the "work for hire" clause. As I understand it that would have been catastrophic. It would have likely meant that anything users prompt from these generators would automatically be the copyright of the people running the AI.

The process you describe could likely still be protected under this ruling since there's human involvement in the selection of output to use and the altering of it afterward to fit whatever creative vision the person had. If this had won a person doing that it seems would at best be making a derivative work and still not be able to protect it.

The way I understand it if you did that and tried to take just the raw AI output and get a copyright on it you couldn't based on this ruling. But if it was one of the tools you used to create a piece of art even if it was just editing and making small changes to it to suit your creative vision based on what the AI put out then you could. It sounds like the judge is mainly talking about works solely generated by AI.

Also my understanding was that this guy was trying to get the AI generator itself to be considered the author for the things it generated for the purposes of copyright. Which would theoretically transfer to whatever entity is running the AI because of the "Work for Hire" clause.

From my reading it was more like if you created art with a hammer the copyright doesn't automatically go to the hammer which would then transfer to you via the "work for hire" clause. So if you then say lent out that hammer to a bunch of other artists to make art with you would theoretically have a copyright claim to everything they made using your hammer.

Fuck... Is THAT why I never had any trouble learning regexs? I could not for the life of me understand why my classmates didn't get it.

No it absolutely is, you're just conflating (possibly deliberately to be obtuse IDK) multiple meanings of the word wrong when the quote is clearly only using one.

Not really. Wrong here has multiple meanings that are being conflated. You're talking about wrong meaning factually incorrect while it's being used to mean not the propagandist's preferred idea. Yeah, you'd be fired for teaching something factually incorrect. But that's not the same thing as being fired for not teaching the propaganda the state wants to push.

I'm sure they're hoping it cleans the air of people telling them to "do something" about "climate change" and let them get back to giving huge giveaways to oil companies.

Seriously, I might be wrong but last I knew carbon capture tech wasn't anywhere near good enough. How long would this thing have to run to do much as break even on the emissions building it caused?