#copyright laws

[titleknown]

So, there’s three terrible copyright acts in Congress they’re trying to push into “must-pass” legislation, so they can forcibly be shoved through under our noses, and we in the US need to call our Congresspeople to tell them to not let them in.

The three terrible bills are:

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) (the one that’s basically a chokepoint on linking anything online_

The Stopping Harmful Offers on Platforms by Screening Against Fakes in E-commerce Act (SHOP SAFE) (Which I talked about ages ago, and oh god, it is bad)

The Strengthening Measures to Advance Rights Technologies Copyright Act (The one that’s going to mandate filters)

Here’s where you can find your representatives and senators and their contact information via your address or zip code.

You should call them especially soon, because you know they’re going to use the lack of scrutiny post-election to try and slip them in, so we need to get on their asses well after the last vote has been counted.

Remember, just voting isn’t enough, and senators mainly respond to messages about this stuff in volume, IE gathering how many they get on a certain bill to know about the broad opinions on it.

But luckily, a lot of people apparently don’t call in, so it’s possible with even at least a modest swell to get a backlog of “Hey, this bill sucks, kill it” messages! So yeah!

[thoughtportal]

By Sarah Andersen

Ms. Andersen is a cartoonist and the illustrator of a semiautobiographical comic strip, “Sarah’s Scribbles.”

7 min read

At 19, when I began drafting my webcomic, I had just been flung into adulthood. I felt a little awkward, a little displaced. The glittering veneer of social media, which back then was mostly Facebook, told me that everyone around me had their lives together while I felt like a withering ball of mediocrity. But surely, I believed, I could not be the only one who felt that life was mostly an uphill battle of difficult moments and missed social cues.

I started my webcomic back in 2011, before “relatable” humor was as ubiquitous online as it is today. At the time, the comics were overtly simple, often drawn shakily in Microsoft Paint or poorly scanned sketchbook pages. The jokes were less punchline-oriented and more of a question: Do you feel this way too? I wrote about the small daily struggles of missed clock alarms, ill-fitting clothes and cringe-worthy moments.

I had hoped, at most, for a small, niche following, but to my elation, I had viral success. My first comic to reach a sizable audience was about simply not wanting to get up in the morning, and it was met with a chorus of “this is so me.” I felt as if I had my finger on the pulse of the collective underdog. To have found this way of communicating with others and to make it my work was, and remains, among the greatest gifts and privileges of my life.

But the attention was not all positive. In late 2016, I caught the eye of someone on the 4chan board /pol/. There was no particular incident that prompted the harassment, but in hindsight, I was a typical target for such groups. I am a woman, the messaging in the comics is feminist leaning, and importantly, the simplicity of my work makes it easy to edit and mimic. People on the forum began reproducing my work and editing it to reflect violently racist messages advocating genocide and Holocaust denial, complete with swastikas and the introduction of people getting pushed into ovens. The images proliferated online, with sites like Twitter and Reddit rarely taking them down.

A recent example of my work

For my comics, I keep things simple — punchy drawings, minimal text — because I like my ideas to be immediately accessible. I write a lot about day-to-day life. My pets, their personality quirks and my love for them are common themes.

The ways my images were altered were crude, but a few were convincing. Through the bombardment of my social media with these images, the alt-right created a shadow version of me, a version that advocated neo-Nazi ideology. At times people fell for it. I received outraged messages and had to contact my publisher to make my stance against this ultraclear. I started receiving late-night calls and had to change my number, and I got the distinct impression that the alt-right wanted a public meltdown.

At one point, someone appeared to have made a typeface, or a font, out of my handwriting. Something about the mimicking of my handwriting, streamlined into an easily accessible typeface, felt particularly violating. Handwriting is personal and intimate to me, a detail that defines me as much other unique traits like the color of my eyes or my name. I can easily recognize the handwriting of my family members and friends — it is literally their signature. Something about this new typeface made me feel as if the person who had created it was trying to program a piece of my soul.

One of the images created by the alt-right

In this comic, only the text was edited. The drawings are mine (though they are a bit dated as my style has evolved since 2017). I found the typeface to be a convincing imitation of my handwriting. Had the text been fitted into the speech bubbles more elegantly, I’d find this almost indistinguishable from my work.

The harassment shocked the naïveté out of my system. A shadow me hung over my head constantly, years after the harassment campaign ended. I had been writing differently, always trying to stay one step ahead of how my drawings could be twisted. Every deranged image the alt-right created required someone sitting down and physically editing or drawing it, and this took time and effort, allowing me to outpace them and salvage my career.

And then along comes artificial intelligence. In October, I was sent via Twitter an image generated by A.I. from a random fan who had used my name as a prompt. It wasn’t perfect, but the contours of my style were there. The notion that someone could type my name into a generator and produce an image in my style immediately disturbed me. This was not a human creating fan art or even a malicious troll copying my style; this was a generator that could spit out several images in seconds. With some technical improvement, I could see how the process of imitating my work would soon become fast and streamlined, and the many dark potentials bubbled to the forefront of my mind.

I felt violated. The way I draw is the complex culmination of my education, the comics I devoured as a child and the many small choices that make up the sum of my life. The details are often more personal than people realize — the striped shirt my character wears, for instance, is a direct nod to the protagonist of “Calvin and Hobbes,” my favorite newspaper comic. Even when a person copies me, the many variations and nuances in things like line weight make exact reproductions difficult. Humans cannot help bringing their own humanity into art. Art is deeply personal, and A.I. had just erased the humanity from it by reducing my life’s work to an algorithm.

A.I. text-to-image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E exploded onto the scene this year and in mere months have become widely used to create all sorts of images, ranging from digital art pieces to character designs. Stable Diffusion alone has more than 10 million daily users. These A.I. products are built on collections of images known as “data sets,” from which a detailed map of the data set’s contents, the “model,” is formed by finding the connections among images and between images and words. Images and text are linked in the data set, so the model learns how to associate words with images. It can then make a new image based on the words you type in.

An A.I. generated image that I created when I used my name as a prompt

It’s not perfect — but it has captured the signature elements of my drawing style. The black bangs, striped shirt and wide eyes are immediately recognizable. As A.I. gets increasingly sophisticated, I am growing more concerned about what’s possible.

The data set for Stable Diffusion is called LAION 5b and was built by collecting close to six billion images from the internet in a practice called data scraping. Most, if not all, A.I. generators have my work in their data sets.

Legally, it appears as though LAION was able to scour what seems like the entire internet because it deems itself a nonprofit organization engaging in academic research. While it was funded at least in part by Stability AI, the company that created Stable Diffusion, it is technically a separate entity. Stability AI then used its nonprofit research arm to create A.I. generators first via Stable Diffusion and then commercialized in a new model called DreamStudio.

So what makes up these data sets? Well, pretty much everything. For artists, many of us had what amounted to our entire portfolios fed into the data set without our consent. This means that A.I. generators were built on the backs of our copyrighted work, and through a legal loophole, they were able to produce copies of varying levels of sophistication. When I checked the website haveibeentrained.com, a site created to allow people to search LAION data sets, so much of my work was on there that it filled up my entire desktop screen.

Many artists are not completely against the technology but felt blindsided by the lack of consideration for our craft. Being able to imitate a living artist has obvious implications for our careers, and some artists are already dealing with real challenges to their livelihood. Concept artists create works for films, video games, character designs and more. Greg Rutkowski, a hugely popular concept artist, has been used in a prompt for Stable Diffusion upward of 100,000 times. Now, his name is no longer attached to just his own work, but it also summons a slew of imitations of varying quality that he hasn’t approved. This could confuse clients, and it muddies the consistent and precise output he usually produces. When I saw what was happening to him, I thought of my battle with my shadow self. We were each fighting a version of ourself that looked similar but that was uncanny, twisted in a way to which we didn’t consent.

It gets darker. The LAION data sets have also been found to include photos of extreme violence, medical records and nonconsensual pornography. There’s a chance that somewhere in there lurks a photo of you. There are some guardrails for the more well-known A.I. generators, such as limiting certain search terms, but that doesn’t change the fact that the data set is still rife with disturbing material, and that users can find ways around the term limitations. Furthermore, because LAION is open source, people are creating new A.I. generators that don’t have these same guardrails and that are often used to make pornography.

In theory, everyone is at risk for their work or image to become a vulgarity with A.I., but I suspect those who will be the most hurt are those who are already facing the consequences of improving technology, namely members of marginalized groups. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, has an entire saga of deep-fake nonconsensual pornography attached to her image. I can only imagine that some of her more malicious detractors would be more than happy to use A.I. to harass her further. In the future, with A.I. technology, many more people will have a shadow self with whom they must reckon. Once the features that we consider personal and unique — our facial structure, our handwriting, the way we draw — can be programmed and contorted at the click of a mouse, the possibilities for violations are endless.

I’ve been playing around with several generators, and so far none have mimicked my style in a way that can directly threaten my career, a fact that will almost certainly change as A.I. continues to improve. It’s undeniable; the A.I.s know me. Most have captured the outlines and signatures of my comics — black hair, bangs, striped T-shirts. To others, it may look like a drawing taking shape.

I see a monster forming.

[heroicvilliansometimes]

How much trouble would I be in if I posted a graphic novel on Webtoon depicting my adventures with the Weasley twins from my conversations with character ai. Like would I face copyright laws I need to know.

[realjdobypr]

The Influence of Hip Hop Culture: Exploring Its Elements

Hip hop culture has made an undeniable impact on the world, seeping into every corner of society and transcending its humble beginnings. With its powerful elements of MCing, DJing, breakdancing, and graffiti art, hip hop culture has become a driving force in mainstream culture. It has the power to inspire, provoke thought, and spark conversation on critical social issues, making it more than just…

[thanakite]

Okay, so you don't have to like Taylor Swift or her music, but everyone should acknowledge that the current copyright lawsuit against her is utterly fucking ridiculous and would set an extremely bad precedent for copyright laws

For those that don't know she is being sued over 'Shake it Off' specifically because another band had a song they wrote in 2001 where they too talk about 'Players playing' and 'Haters hating' and the judge in this case is being very wishy-washy on their decisions for it

Such short segments should never be copyrightable and definitely not basic ass things like this

Of this were to succeed it would likely lead to the music industry claiming copyright of as many short phrases as possible which would then be used in turn to keep out anyone they find 'less desirable' which you know would hit minorities the hardest

Literally I believe that any copyright case should be looked at through a lens of "If this succeeds will it drastically change the way copyright is looked at and taken into account" and if the answer is anything close to yes, then it should be thrown out, because those drastic changes are never going to be a positive for consumers or creators just money hungry assholes

Everything within creative spheres is built on top of whatever came before it, failure to acknowledge that through copyright laws will only have a negative effect on future works

Fuck people who try and make money in these ways because if they succeed they will damage these industries in ways that will be incredibly difficult to fix/change

Minor similarities within things should always be expected because that is how life works, 'Under Pressure' by Queen and 'Ice, Ice, Baby' by Vanilla Ice have the same opening, to the extent that you often won't know which one it is right away, BUT it would be idiotic to say that the songs aren't completely different from each other

[evanyellsartblog]

Tell the US copyright office how you feel about AI. Spread this like wildfire. Comments are due oct 18th 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2023-0006-0001

[mostlydaydreaming]

RANT!!!😠

I’m sad to say both my Gene Kelly Merv Griffin shows have been taken down from YouTube😢

I thought they were both great opportunities to see Gene in a relaxed, social atmosphere. He was so sweet & charming in those shows.

I wouldn’t mind if they were made available for fans to see elsewhere. But I’ve seen the videos The MG show has released. They’re all compilation videos with shortened clips and none of them include Gene.

Now I’m afraid they’ll be buried again, available only to the few people who can find someone with a copy to borrow/download.

I’ve been looking for Gene & Fred Astaire on The Tonight Show forever. TTS has released a bunch of shows on DVD but not that one. Why? Is it making them more money sitting in obscurity?

How do they expect Old Hollywood & early TV stars to gain new fans (and make them money!) if there’s no way for younger people to discover them? What’s the benefit?

And I despise all those private collectors who hoard precious clips and shows to themselves just so they can say they were one of the few people to ever see them. So many things are out there that real fans would be thrilled to see and hear. These people take their secrets to the grave just so this stuff can collect dust in an attic somewhere. Why?

There needs to be a shorter Copyright Statute of Limitations on such things. The people profiting off them now had nothing to do with the original productions.

A nice article promoting public domain:

This helps enable access to cultural materials that might otherwise be lost to history. 1926 was a long time ago. The vast majority of works from 1926 are out of circulation. When they enter the public domain in 2022, anyone can rescue them from obscurity and make them available, where we can all discover, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.

[capricorn-the-goat]

me, explaining copyright laws around the world:

my cat who just wanted a piece of my hamburger:

[ananicoleta]

Question.

I'm writing my fic rn and I came to a point where I have to name a bunch of famous Christmas movies. Now, my question was, can I write the real titles, or is that considered copyright infringment?

Thank you for your time.

[graham-folger]

Man I'm upset about infinity train too, don't get me wrong, but I just don't know how you can take the stance "that shouldn't be legal" and like... be 100% principled in doing so? Like, Infinity train was created by Warner Bros Studios, which owns HBO Max. It's like if The Owl House were to be pulled from Disney+.

Is it bad? Yeah. Are the writers and animators upset about it? Yes. Did they know this was a possibility and sign the contracts anyway? Also yes. Should we be taking measures to preserve the show? Absolutely. But should Warner Bros be legally compelled to keep distributing the show? I don't really think so.

That's not to say there isn't a case to be made here! I'm sure you could use this to argue that the people who participate in creating the show should have a say in how it's distributed, and how that could be a more ethical business model.

Or you could make the case that hey, maybe Fair Use laws should be extended to cover the preservation of decirculated material, in addition to its already existing applications in education, satire, and critique.

And both of those sound like good ideas, and people are saying those things! But for every post saying that, I see two more effectively saying that a studio responsible for creating a show should be tasked with distributing it for the studio's lifespan, and that doesn't sit well with me.

[vampcoffeegyrl23]

doing a college persuasive paper about fanfiction is fun and all but it's still a paper 😒

[thoughtportal]

The silicon age is built on sand.

The things we love can disappear just like that.

Streaming changed everything. We pull from the cloud, not realising most of the content we buy is rented to us, not truly ours. Whether a Kindle book, or a film bought on iTunes; they can snatch it back in a heartbeat. Spotify's incompletion fucks with the canon, omitting beloved songs and albums based on licensing. Maybe a generation will grow up never having heard early Jay-Z, or Lana del Rey, deep cuts of Radiohead or the delights of Sapokanikan. Maybe their friends will never get into K-Pop. When George Lucas reworked Star Wars there was outrage; Disney makes stealth edits whenever it likes. People joke that future films and TV shows might just iterate - rush towards a deadline, patching ropey plot points and effects after the fact.

And cancelled artists don't have a chance. You had to burn a book, but a file's just gone. Maybe, like Amon Tobin, one errant sample gets your iconic track erased from the internet.

Because few people realise how delicate the cloud is. An outage freezes traffic, and one day might wipe out all those illicit remixes, all those emails, love notes. A million unprinted photos.

On a fragile internet, so much of our cultural wealth hangs in the balance.

All our beloved things. Tomorrow's dust.

[thevitalportal]

While I was enjoying a wonderful Tuesday I overheard a conversation how Humble Pie wrote a song g called “I don’t need no doctor”. I stopped what I was doing, editing a corporate policy document. To address this classic case of cultural appropriation that used our copyright laws to claim ownership and the Internet search tools to promote their version as if its the original.

The husband and wife musical dynamic duo of Ashford and Simpson wrote this song and Ray Charles performed it in 1966. Here is an accurate discography that can be verified by ASCAP, BMI, etc.

"I Don't Need No Doctor" is an R&B song written by Nick Ashford, Valerie Simpson, and Jo Armstead. First released by Ashford on Verve in August 1966, it went nowhere. It was then picked up and recorded by Ray Charles and released in October 1966. Over the years, it has been covered by bands such as garage rock band The Chocolate Watchband in 1969, Humble Pie in 1971, New Riders of the Purple Sage in 1972, metal band W.A.S.P. in 1986, by rock band Great White in 1987, and by the garage punk band The Nomads in 1989. Styx also covered this song. Humble Pie's version reached No. 73 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart and No. 72 in Canada.

Use this link to learn more about this song. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don%27t_Need_No_Doctor

[krissym72]

Selling AI-Generated Art on T-Shirts: Legalities, Marketing Strategies, and Profitability

In recent years, the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and artistic expression has given rise to a fascinating trend: AI-generated art finding its way onto T-shirts. This innovative fusion of technology and creativity has captured the attention of both artists and consumers alike, revolutionizing the landscape of wearable art. As AI continues to evolve, so too does its capacity to…

[the-irreverend]

My own stupid-ass way of celebrating our long-awaited ownership of Mickey Mouse.

Yes, I'm a Nimona fan, shut up y'all.