To clarify the relationship between TRIPS and Berne: TRIPS mandates all of Berne (except 6bis) thus all the fundamental rights granted to authors are still valid and your secondary objectives can be achieved only in ways that do not prejudice the legitimate interest of authors.
@alexjc
-
Copyright removal and TRIPS compliance in AI context
By
–
OK, let's dig in there then. How is removing copyright balancing interests in a way that complies with TRIPS 7 & 8?
-
GNU License Violation: Relicensing Identical Code
By
–
What if someone takes your GNU-licensed code and makes an identical version with a different license?
-
Copyright liability at scale: AI training and infringement risks
By
–
Yes, that's the point of Copyright! As a human artist, if you intentionally copy someone's work you are potentially liable and the responsibility is yours to ensure (i) you're not infringing or (ii) you get the right license. Doing so at scale by machines is 1.0e+9x risk.
-
Getty’s Business Strategy: Custom vs Fixed AI Outputs
By
–
If you want to have that argument from a business perspective, I'm all for it. What's the point in Getty selling *fixed* AI outputs (from third-parties) when it could sell its own *custom* AI outputs (tech in-house)?
-
Pranesh’s U.S.-Centric Argumentation Strategy Outdated by Century
By
–
Pranesh' argumentation strategy is more U.S. centric and pre-Berne, so not only out of touch with the rest of the world but about 100 years out of date.
-
Berne Convention Protects Creator Rights Over Balance
By
–
The Berne Convention, which 181 countries signed including India, explicitly states it's about protecting the rights of authors. The "balance" is not the goal, it emerges out of protecting economic and moral rights of creators.
-
Getty’s Copyright Licensing Strategy for AI-Generated Content
By
–
Getty needs to license content knowing there are no liabilities open, and the chain of title for Copyrights is clean. Getty knows the business of licensing better than anyone. It helps understand the Big Picture to look at what companies with skin in the game are doing!
-
Copyright abolition debate: ideology versus legal argument
By
–
Honestly, it's amazing how poorly your argument is thought thru—considering it's such a common position and it's been many months now, I'd assume better. Your legal argument is to abolish Copyright then that's fine but just say that upfront then we know it's ideology-based.
-
AI Copyright Ethics: Balancing Rights and Creative Consent
By
–
1. If you allow AI companies to take anything they want, there is no balance only the end of Copyright. 2. Creative culture is heavily based on credits, collaborations, compensation. Also works. Why do you like the option that violates consent?