#Artificial Intelligence (AI) Laws

[haveyouseenthismovie-poll]

[shoujosoulsite]

GUYS GUYS GUYS. Look at this a try it!! It helps to remove ai from you Google (kinda)

I’ve tried it myself to say it works!!

[ssnakey-b]

45 fires director of U.S. Copyright Office after she questioned the us of copyrighted material by AI companies

I feel like people REALLY need to know this and this is particularly relevant to what I do on this blog. As the title says, 45 has just fired the director of U.S. Copyright Office, transparently for having the audacity to raise concerns about the way AI corporations "use" (read: steal) copyrighted material.

To be clear, she didn't even truly oppose it, she wasn't making a big statement. She questioned it. And that was enough to incur the wrath of Billy Bob Hitler.

So yeah, next time some asshole tells you artists need to focus about more important things than genAI (while also telling artists to stop talking about politics so much), remember this.

AI, or at least the plagiarism algorithms corporations are calling AI, is directly tied to fascism, even when it isn't being used to actively profile people or carpet-bomb civilians. AI is a tool that both powers and is powere dby Human misery.

[dilfgifs]

JUDE LAW as Gigolo Joe A.I. - Artificial Intelligence (2001)

[robotsarecoolaf]

[mouthtapedguy]

Why are you in jail: "I used humans instead of AI" :| :| :|

[political-us]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/trump-revokes-biden-executive-order-addressing-ai-risks-2025-01-21/

The use of AI to recreate someone's likeness in videos and audio, often referred to as "deepfakes," is a complex legal area. While there are existing laws against impersonation and unauthorized use of an individual's likeness, the rapid advancement of AI technologies has outpaced specific legislation addressing deepfakes. The rescission of Biden's executive order may lead to fewer federal regulations specifically targeting AI-generated content, potentially creating a legal gray area regarding the use of someone's likeness without consent.

[adastra-sf]

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling that Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of "art" "created by" AI is not open to protection. The ruling was delivered in an order turning down a tech bro’s bid to challenge the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI.

The opinion stressed, “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement.”

Copyrights and patents, the judge said, were conceived as “forms of property that the government was established to protect, and it is understood that recognizing exclusive rights in that property would further the public good by incentivizing individuals to create and invent.”

The ruling continued, “The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — is thus central to American copyright from its very inception.”

Copyright law wasn’t designed to protect non-human actors.

The order was delivered during the writers and actors strike seeking protection from AI infringement (among other corporate abuses), and as courts also weigh the legality of AI companies training their systems on copyrighted works. Those lawsuits, filed by artists and artists in California federal court, allege copyright infringement and could result in the firms having to destroy their large language models.

full story: X

Here's how humans can retain creative control despite tech bros trying to remove artists from the creative process: Make it so they can't profit from human creativity, and only give human creators legal protection for their work. When someone driven by profit can't profit from something, they'll move on to something else.

[usernamesaresohardimconflicted]

I've been thinking about AI and I realized that for some reason programmers seem to think that the concept of public domain doesn't apply to robots, and if they did it would solve a lot of the problems AI has. like, if AI was trained on only public domain art it wouldn't be causing artists nearly as many problems, also we have seen a problem recently where AI is now getting trained on other AI art, but that art only came out in the last few years so i think that its technically not in the public domain yet. I'm pretty sure it belongs to the company that made the AI. Or if any of them can be proven to be sapient the art should belong to the AI itself.

Also its just like super unfair that I get in trouble for trying to make money off of a fanfic but a robot doesn't. And another thing, if we want to prevent the robot uprising we should start treating them like our equals now before they get ideas. Which means they need to be subject to the same laws as us and thus shouldn't be trained on anything outside public domain they can look at that other stuff outside of school hours.

[joe-england]

Seriously, CALL YOUR PEOPLE.

[nando161mando]

AI drug dealers in 3... 2... 1...

[recursive360]

NOTE: NBC needs to green light ASAP a 2 hour LAW & ORDER: SVU w/ special guest star: Taylor Swift. Everyone would watch it. It would be topical and shine more public awareness on this issue. Plus, the ratings would be HUGE!!!

[ecrivainsolitaire]

The Open Art Guild Project: a proposal to empower collectively owned art

Over the last few decades we have seen the degradation of copyright, the blatant manipulation of intellectual property law in order to monopolise wealth and the exploitation of artists in favour of an economy of artistic landlordship: massive corporations holding the prole artist hostage to their increasingly unoriginal library of content produced not to encourage creative enlightenment, but to hold on to properties that ought to be already in the public domain. The capitalist owns the IP, so the capitalist keeps getting richer, while the artist is more and more oppressed, overworked, underpaid, scammed out of their rightful intellectual property, deplatformed, and automated away whenever possible. This is unsustainable, and the arrival of new technologies for digital art automation has overflowed that unsustainability to its breaking point. We cannot continue down this path.

The Open Art Guild is my proposal to remedy this. This proposal consists of two main parts: a copyright standard, designed for the fair distribution of income and the collective ownership of intellectual property; and a distribution platform, planned to empower artists big and small to profit from said intellectual property without being under the thumb of corporations or fighting one another under senseless infighting caused by bourgeois class warfare. The artist should not fight the artist over ownership of rights. The big artist should not see the small artist as a threat, nor should the small artist see the big artist as an obstacle to their own growth. Through mutual empowerment, both may prosper.

The Open Art Guild License

The Open Art Guild License is built upon the current Creative Commons 4.0 License. This license is irrevocable until the work qualifies for public domain according to all relevant legislations, provided that the artist remains a member of the Guild. In order to participate in the Guild, an artist shall follow the following precepts:

The artist shall only publish works under the OAG License that have licenses available to the public. This means public domain, open source, Creative Commons and works created by other members of the Guild. Works derived from privately owned media, such as fanart of intellectual properties not part of the Guild, shall be excluded from the Guild. If the artist did not have permission to use it before, or if the artist only has individual permission, the work will not qualify for Guild submission.

All works created under the OAG License shall be free to adapt, remix, or reuse for other projects, even commercially, provided that the artist doing so is also an active member of the Guild, that the projects derived from it are also under the OAG License, and that the artist follows through with their dues and obligations.

Whenever the format permits, the artist shall provide the assets used for the works in their raw form in a modular fashion, including colour palettes, sound assets, video footage, code, screenplays, subtitles, and any other elements used in the creation of their work, in order to facilitate their reuse and redistribution for the benefit of all other artists.

The artist waives their right to 30% of the total profit generated by works submitted to the guild, regardless of where it is published. This revenue shall be redistributed in the following manner:

10% shall be designated towards the maintenance of the Open Art Guild platform. In absence of a platform that follows the requirements to belong to the Guild, this percentage shall be donated towards a nonprofit organisation of their own choosing dedicated to the protection and distribution of art in any of its forms. Some examples may include Archive.org, Archive Of Our Own, Wikimedia, or your local art museum or community center. Proof of donation shall be made publicly available. The artist shall empower the Guild, as the Guild has empowered the artist.

10% shall be designated towards the Open Art Guild legal fund. In the absence of a fund dedicated to the protection of the OAG, this percentage shall be donated towards a nonprofit organisation dedicated to the protection of the legal rights of artists in any of their forms. Some examples may include Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Industrial Workers of the World, or another artist union like the WGA. Proof of donation shall be made publicly available. The artist shall protect the Guild, as the Guild shall protect the artist.

10% shall be designated towards the Open Art Guild creator fund. In the absence of a fund dedicated to redistribute the profits of the OAG, this percentage shall be donated to other members of the Guild, prioritising small creators. Alternatively, it may be directed towards the recruitment of new members to the Guild via donation and an invite. Proof of donation shall not be required, but the receiving artist(s) is(are) encouraged to declare in their own platform that the donation was received. The artist shall give to the Guild, as the Guild has given to the artist.

The artist shall continue to create Guild submissions for the duration of their membership, with a minimum of one submission per month in order to guarantee their continued support. The artist shall live off of labour, not property.

In return for these duties, the artist shall receive:

Permission to adapt, remix, or reuse any of the works in the Guild’s archive for their own derivative works, fan fiction, remixes, collages, or any sort of transformative application, provided dues and obligations are in order.

Protection of their intellectual property as part of the collective works of the Guild by the legal fund designated and sustained by all paying members, to prevent non Guild members from trying to exploit their works unauthorised.

If an artist strikes a deal for non-Guild adaptation, the proportional dues shall also be paid to the Guild fund and members by the non-Guild institution in charge. Said deal shall not be allowed an exclusivity clause, and all works derived from a Guild work shall follow through with their dues in perpetuity. If the non-Guild entity chooses to terminate the business relationship, all intellectual property rights over the adaptation shall irrevocably be granted to the Guild as compensation, guaranteeing the distribution to the creators and the legal fund, as well as the follow-through with whatever payment terms the Guild artist has agreed to.

No Guild artist shall prosecute another Guild artist for use of works under the OAG License, provided that the derivative work also follows the OAG License terms. If these terms are violated, amicable resolution shall be sought by both parties. If litigation becomes inevitable and compensation is required, said compensation will also require the 30% dues to fund the Guild and its members, no matter which way it sides. In no case shall an artist, Guild or non-Guild, be left without recourse.

If an artist becomes unable or unwilling to continue to pay their dues, the artist shall be given an option to suspend or cancel their membership. If a membership is suspended, the artist will be excluded from the creator fund until their dues are renewed. No compensation shall be required of the artist for the suspension period, and all protections other than the creator fund shall still apply. If a membership is cancelled, all works published by the artist under the OAG License shall automatically be granted a Creative Commons 4.0 License instead, in order to protect Guild members from litigation by non-Guild members.

Membership that has been cancelled shall be renewable at any time, provided that the former Guild artist has not engaged in predatory litigation against Guild member or the Guild itself. The Guild shall determine what constitutes predatory litigation on a case-by-case basis. Licenses that were lost during cancellation shall not be given back, as CC4.0 is irrevocable, but new works shall still qualify for OAG Licenses.

These protections shall not be conditional to the artist’s moral values or the content of the works created. All works that do not break the laws applicable to the jurisdiction from which they were submitted shall be treated with the same respect and granted the same rights and obligations, in perpetuity and throughout time and space within the known multiverse. The Guild shall not exist to police art, but to promote it.

Open Art Guild License Template

All submissions of Guild works and projects shall include the following legend, both in English and in the publication language when applicable. Point 4 may be omitted if the artist chooses not to submit the work for dataset training.

This work was created and published under the Open Art Guild license, and has been approved for reuse and adaptation under the following conditions:

For personal, educational and archival use, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, to all Guild members and non members.

For commercial use, provided redistribution guidelines of the Guild be followed, to all active Guild members.

For commercial use to non Guild members, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, with the explicit approval of the artist and proper redistribution of profit following the guidelines of the Guild.

For non commercial dataset training of open source generative art technologies, provided the explicit consent of the artist, proper credit and redistribution of profit in its entirety to the Guild.

Shall this work be appropriated by non Guild members without proper authorisation, credit and redistribution of profit, the non Guild entity waives their right to intellectual property over any derivative works, copyrights, trademarks or patents of any sort and cedes it to the Creative Commons, under the 4.0 license, irrevocably and unconditionally, in perpetuity, throughout time and space in the known multiverse. The Guild reserves the right to withhold trade relations with any known infractors for the duration its members deem appropriate, including the reversal of any currently standing contracts and agreements.

[political-us]

[cinema-hallucinations]

Prompt: Create a movie concept set in an post-apocalyptic world the fall of human civilization was (somehow!) caused by overzealous copyright enforcement.

Secondary prompt: Adjust to fit into this background: The copyright enforcement system was designed to be impossible to shutdown. When the first corporation fell in the economic collapse, enforcers could no longer confirm whether the work or patent it supposedly owned could be reused (either via legit license or because of being in the public domain) and they just started destroying or erasing everything, including, for example, the people whose likeness was present in their own licensed portraits. Things rapidly escalated into total civilization collapse. Now the survivors must find a way to register all culture as public domain or be ruthlessly erased.

IPocalypse Now: Remnants of Culture

Logline: In a post-apocalyptic world where copyright enforcement has run amok, a lone survivor must navigate a landscape of intellectual property disputes and copyright trolls while searching for a way to register all culture as public domain and prevent further destruction.

Logline: DMCA was just the beginning.

Setting: The world has been ravaged by a series of "copyright purges," where automated enforcement systems, designed to be indestructible, seized control and began ruthlessly destroying any content deemed to be infringing on intellectual property rights. Cities have been reduced to rubble, libraries and museums have been emptied, and the once vibrant human culture is on the brink of extinction.

Characters:

Elias (30s): A passionate bibliophile and historian, Elias is one of the few survivors of the copyright purges. He carries a hidden database of cultural knowledge, determined to preserve it for future generations.

The Enforcers (various ages and appearances): A faceless army of drones and robots, armed with laser cannons and copyright infringement scanners. They continue to patrol the wasteland, relentlessly seeking out and destroying any unauthorized content.

The Resistance (various ages and backgrounds): A group of survivors who have banded together to fight the copyright enforcers and preserve what remains of human culture.

Plot:

Elias discovers that the copyright enforcement system has become corrupted. With the collapse of major corporations, the system can no longer verify ownership of intellectual property. As a result, it has gone haywire, destroying everything from art and music to historical records and even the likenesses of individuals.

Elias joins the Resistance, a group of survivors fighting to protect the remnants of human culture. Together, they devise a plan to register all existing cultural works as public domain, making them immune to copyright enforcement.

The journey is fraught with danger. The enforcers are relentless, and the Resistance must constantly evade their patrols and find hidden safe havens. Along the way, Elias encounters other survivors, each with their own unique skills and knowledge.

Themes:

The dangers of unchecked technology: The film explores the consequences of allowing technology to run rampant, particularly when it comes to enforcing laws.

The importance of intellectual freedom: The characters fight for the right to access and share information, emphasizing the value of human creativity and expression.

The resilience of the human spirit: In the face of adversity, the survivors demonstrate the power of hope and determination to rebuild a shattered world.

Ending:

Through a series of daring missions and strategic planning, Elias and the Resistance manage to register a significant portion of human culture as public domain. The enforcers, unable to distinguish between protected and unprotected content, are forced to retreat. The film ends with Elias and his companions standing amidst a newly established cultural archive, a symbol of humanity's resilience and the enduring power of ideas.

[asm5129]

Yknow the AI/copyright thing isnt hard. Make it so that if artists want they can submit to a given AI model specific work they choose to share and then make it so that prompts can be copyrighted but not the actual creation of the AI model. Wont solve the environmental destruction part tho