A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.
The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.
Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.
(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:
Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)
In the same way that the law doesn’t prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.
Wow so much freedom. You can’t even alter a picture that you own.
i think you can remove it if you own the copyright on it
How gracious of them.
?
I have ever right to remove a watermark from any image on my computer.
Not true however if you actually own the image then it’s unlikely to have a watermark
Why not? I can tear out the copyright section of book I own, how is removing a watermark different?
Reproduction is the primary complaint, but if I don’t distribute it that’s invalid.
Is the photo of the image on my device? If so I own it. If you take a photo of it you own that photo as well.
I’m sure that’s how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there’s like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.
Try and stop me
You should change your name to afraid_of_reality. Have fun in your dream world, I’m out.
Let me get this straight - if a vengeful ex or someone else gets a hand on naked pictures of you, they can do whatever they want to them? You wouldn’t want any limits on their ability to alter them and spread them?
Nope, that would be sexual harassment if they spread them if it was truly awful they could also be hit for liable as well. However, if they kept it on their device and never showed anyone they can do what they want.
There is a difference between owning a hammer and hitting someone with a hammer.
Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.
Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.
Oh hi Disney. Here to shut down another daycare for having a picture of Mickey Mouse?
I have full rights to do whatever the fuck I want with content and tech. If I want to make Daffy Duck solve a mystery with Cheech in Victorian England with Genghis Khan as the chief of Scotland yard and Fred Rodgers as the bad guy I am free to do so. If I buy a machine I can take apart all of it, reverse engineer it, modify it, and comment on it on YouTube.
Bite me corporate
Yes. Your content and tech. And you even get a say in how others get to use it. Thanks to laws like these. Not to someone else’s.
Yes my content and my tech. It is physically in my possession it is mine. If you take a picture of it congrats that picture is your picture. What part is confusing you exactly?
Did I see a sportsball event? I can talk about it to whom I want when I want.
Did I buy a physical book? I can take as many photos of it as I want.
Did I buy a cell phone? I can take apart it, modify it, reverse engineer it, benchmark it, and review it.
Now answer my question if you plan to go after another Daycare, Disney. No more evasions
Sure.
Nope. You can’t, for example, take a picture of all the pages and then redistribute those.
Only if you tell me whether or not you stopped beating your wife.
I initially thought you were ignorant of the core principle of intellectual property, but now I see you’re just wilfully delusional.
Oh really? For someone bragging about their knowledge of copyright law I am surprised yo do know about the MLB copyright warning.
I can too.
What you are shilling for free for them on the weekend? Jesus.
And I originally thought Disney was paying you but you are apparently giving it to corporate for free.
Copyright can’t be applied to just talking about an event? MLB cannot copywrite facts such as who won a game or what occurred during the game. Their copywrite notice is not enforceable. https://medialoper.com/warning-those-copyright-warnings-may-not-be-entirely-accurate/
The only thing they can prevent is rebroadcasts and recordings of the game. Just talking about it is in no way related to copyright law.
There are people who think that something being official law is automatically legal. It’s a bit inconvenient that Nazi Germany is the first example that comes to mind to explain why they are wrong.
It’s a moral ought from an is. Informal logical fallacy.
Something is illegal therefore it is immoral.
No, those are two different facts. Perhaps in a better world there would be a lot of overlap between those two but in the world we live in it is not a given or even likely.
No, it’s another distinction. Three different things. Something legal can be moral or not. Something made law can be legal or not. For example, if it’s forced in some way so that formally you couldn’t prevent it becoming law, but it’s still illegal, it’s still illegal.
Which is, other than copyright except for protecting the fact of authorship, why all censorship and surveillance is illegal, and, say, why Armenia legally includes Van, Erzurum, Nakhijevan etc, and the fact that Wilson’s mediation and French mandate have been buried by force just means that Cilicia and Melitene are as well.
Restoring law and order takes effort, though.