 |
lol IB purged my 13 year old galleryby
|
|
| Viewed: | 1,576 times |
| Added: | 4 months, 2 weeks ago |
| " | Balmung wrote: |
|
Yeah, and apparently the two times were enough to bring some attention. Speeding once at the wrong time is enough to be stopped by a cop. I don't care you were using the backgrounds, yes, it's fairly common knowledge and I don't think any harm is caused by doing so. But it is illegal, and IB will want to cover their asses just in case because they're just a small team running an already iffy site on a shoestring budget. The moment they found out they had to put a lid on it for their own safety. |
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
| " | Posting submissions that contain portions of other artists' work (such as using them for backgrounds or other components) is allowed only if you have received their permission to do so. |
| " | No frames or segments (or portions thereof) from movies, animations, TV shows, etc that you don't own the copyright to. |
| " | Posting submissions that contain portions of other artists' work (such as using them for backgrounds or other components) is allowed only if you have received their permission to do so. |
| " | The models used to generate the images were trained on other people's images |
| " | No frames or segments (or portions thereof) from movies, animations, TV shows, etc that you don't own the copyright to. |
| " | Tikkity wrote: |
| I've seen exactly zero of the AI people on here claim they are this exquisite artist, |
|
Custos |
|
GreenReaper |
| " | But then why isn't AI having this applied considering cases such as Getty Images, suing Stability AI and the court agreed that they broke copyright law the only reason they weren't punished in the UK for it was down to technicalities which forced Getty Images to alter aspects of its lawsuit and then won. [...] So in both cases anything made by Stability AI or OpenAI's products would technically violate copyright laws. |
| " | [...]is an AI model which derives or results from a training process involving the exposure of model weights to infringing copies itself an infringing copy? In my judgment, it is not. [...] the Model itself does not store any of those Copyright Works; the model weights are not themselves an infringing copy and they do not store an infringing copy. They are purely the product of the patterns and features which they have learnt over time during the training process. Getty Images’ central submission that “as soon as it is made, the AI model is an infringing copy” is, accordingly, in my judgment, entirely misconceived. (p. 161) |
| " | In summary, although Getty Images succeed (in part) in their Trade Mark Infringement Claim, my findings are both historic and extremely limited in scope. The Secondary Infringement Claim fails. (p. 199) |
| " | The same thing happened with GEMA, who filed a copyright lawsuit against the OpenAI in Germany and GEMA won. |
