Remix.run Logo
▲ an0malous 4 hours ago

I've been seeing a lot of Pokemon games recently as well, are companies just not enforcing their copyright/trademarks anymore?

▲nilamo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They can't sue everyone, comrade. AI tools will hopefully trigger a rewrite of what copyright means, it's always been silly that it prevents derivitive works.

▲lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> AI tools will hopefully trigger a rewrite of what copyright means,

Maybe it will, but this ain't a copyright issues, it's a trademark issue.

▲nilamo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a legal issue, and the legal part has always been bullshit regardless of which specific label happens to apply.

▲Blikkentrekker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you don't make copyright contagious under derivative works then people can just change a few things to get around copyright.

Also, do you really want a world where big film studios can just adapt books of writers without compensating them?

▲Taek 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is 20-30 authors per year making it big really worth the massive suffocation that prevents tens of thousands of authors from writing the stories that are in their hearts?

▲denkmoon 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

They do that anyway today. You really think authors, book writing being the lucrative industry for writers that it is, are suing Universal/Sony/whoever to prevent their IP being infringed?

I do really want a world however where fans/communities can riff on and make derivative works of culturally relevant material without being legally nuked from orbit. The last few weeks have been amazing in the gaming world, creativity abounds and there seem to be no limits as to what we can redesign to our own whims.

▲syspec 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surprised to see this level of discourse here on HN, reads like a reddit comment.

Copyright sucks, and Disney is bad etc, but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay?

I mean, creators should be allowed to exert control over how their assets and brand are used.

▲nilamo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've always found that defending laws that don't benefit people to be a stange attitude on a place called "hacker news".

Creative people should be able to create. Trademark/copyright laws, protecting assets for the great-grandchildren of who actually created the art, has never been a positive. The only people who benefit, are themselves not creative (or else they would create, instead of defending "rights" and "image").

▲egypturnash 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

How about protecting assets for the people who made the art in the first place, geeze.

And seriously wtf why shouldn't, like, Jack Kirby's grandkids get a share of the huge bounty of stuff he created for Marvel, but Elon Musk gets to inherit emerald mines from his dad?

▲fl4regun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay? How is it not ok? What is the issue exactly? From what I can tell it's totally free, and has an indication it is a fan game on the bottom of the screen.

▲59percentmore 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Copyright sucks, and Disney is bad etc, but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay?

Because it's cool.

▲Supermancho 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The number of conglomerates has, unsurprisingly, continued to shrink. It's long overdue for a rethink. Maybe if the US political system ever stabilizes, we might get to it in a hundred years. Until then Copyright sucks and Disney is bad.

▲sharkjacobs 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> creators should be allowed to exert control over how their assets and brand are used

I hate to be glib, but no they shouldn't.

Creators should be allowed to create things and sell them. No one, whether the creator, or the company the creator worked for when they first created the thing, should be able to stop someone else from creating something.

▲steelframe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When it comes to copyright, I am not so optimistic. When the AI bubble bursts, the usual corporate interests will resurface with a vengeance.

▲deadbabe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Couldn’t they just use AI to sue at scale? No one should be too small to go after now.

▲creakingstairs 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The court system is too bogged up as it is with the current load. So I guess we’d have to create some AI judges and lawyers :p

▲bhhaskin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah the law firms just haven't caught up yet. But they will.

▲nilamo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And when the judges get around to the case in 300 years after all the other ai court cases, we'll be beyond caring about the consequences.

▲Legend2440 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Law firms are cautious about AI tools, they got burned a couple years ago by hallucinated citations.

Citing made-up cases sure looks like lying to the court, which is a punishable offense. Lawyers have been sanctioned, fined, and in one case received a 30-day license suspension.

▲throwaway613746 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲larodi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

they may well be busy surviving AI induced chain reactions letting lots of people out of work.

▲ForHackernews 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a totally original creation laundered through LLM derivative works.