| ▲ | chrismorgan 13 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> they have now declared AI models persons [1] Your citation says no such thing. Maybe there’s more in the case itself (in which case, cite it), but I think you’re inferring that based on what I think is an incorrect understanding of what’s going on, also revealed in the rest of the paragraph. (I’m not commenting on other parts of the comment directly, though I feel not identifying the “‘fair use’ exemption” claim or reacting to that in such a long tirade is a bit off.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | spwa4 13 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
True, you have to look at copyright law as well. The only thing that can create a new work with copyright according to both US law AND the international convention is a "natural person". It cannot even be a company according to the law (because copyright is split up in my textbook into what's called natural rights, such as authorship, and economic rights, such as the right to set a license. It must always have a natural person origin because that natural person retains the right to state they were the author forever, no matter what agreements he or she entered into. Meaning it's never the employer that gets that right) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||