They can’t easily cease&desist the big AI companies because of the fair use clause, but if they have a license with one of them, then fair use goes out the window for all the others. They sent a c&d the day this deal was signed against Google for copyright infringement
IANAL. Pure hypothetical guess is that it might constitute a higher degree of ownership of the rights for the ability to transform said characters. Idk though, copyright law is some spooky shit. IBM literally had my dad put his name on an attempt to patent the concept of having something move in an oval to reduce stress. It stood until it was challenged in court and he knew it was bullshit but they paid him so he did it anyway betting on it failing. But like imagine trying to patent physics concepts.
Ok I thought this was a philosophical question at first, I see now that it is not, but I want to respond as if it were by suggesting the book Against Intellectual Monopoly which, ironically or not, costs $36.99 in digital form (Anna has it).
Unless they’re investing first and licensing the characters as a way to bolster their investment but surely Disney needs MML-slop less than MML-slip needs licenses to IP people actually like?
All of OpenAI’s “deals” are incestuous and absurd. They have a 20% revenue share with Microsoft (Microsoft gets 20% of OpenAI’s revenue) and in exchange Microsoft gives OpenAI roughly 20% of revenue from Bing and from Azure’s OpenAI Service, which sells access to OpenAI’s models.
Also these days just saying “We pledge to invest” and following it with a made up number in the hundreds of billions of dollars is enough to make line go up.
Why are they putting money into openAI when they’re supposedly getting paid money for the licensing of the Disney characters?
They can’t easily cease&desist the big AI companies because of the fair use clause, but if they have a license with one of them, then fair use goes out the window for all the others. They sent a c&d the day this deal was signed against Google for copyright infringement
How does having a license with someone invalidate everyone else’s fair-use rights?
IANAL. Pure hypothetical guess is that it might constitute a higher degree of ownership of the rights for the ability to transform said characters. Idk though, copyright law is some spooky shit. IBM literally had my dad put his name on an attempt to patent the concept of having something move in an oval to reduce stress. It stood until it was challenged in court and he knew it was bullshit but they paid him so he did it anyway betting on it failing. But like imagine trying to patent physics concepts.
Fuck if I know but it apparently strengthens their case
Then where did you read this? What were the cases that got filed?
Ok I thought this was a philosophical question at first, I see now that it is not, but I want to respond as if it were by suggesting the book Against Intellectual Monopoly which, ironically or not, costs $36.99 in digital form (Anna has it).
this is hilarious if true
Well played Michael Mouse, well played.
deleted by creator
Because someone has to keep the AI train going CHOO CHOO
This is really what’s happening. Its top-down, figure out how to make money off AI or we’re all going to die!
Unless they’re investing first and licensing the characters as a way to bolster their investment but surely Disney needs MML-slop less than MML-slip needs licenses to IP people actually like?
Bob Iger, screaming, “Please, PLEASE make absolute dogshit with our characters, we’ll even pay you to do it!”
All of OpenAI’s “deals” are incestuous and absurd. They have a 20% revenue share with Microsoft (Microsoft gets 20% of OpenAI’s revenue) and in exchange Microsoft gives OpenAI roughly 20% of revenue from Bing and from Azure’s OpenAI Service, which sells access to OpenAI’s models.
Also these days just saying “We pledge to invest” and following it with a made up number in the hundreds of billions of dollars is enough to make line go up.