Pro-Palestinian usage of the slur coined by David Duke on Twitter is a clue there.
192 karma · joined September 9, 2020
> As of February 14, 2025, the latest version of Chakra UI for React is 3.8.0, released on February 9, 2025. This release introduced new hooks such as useElementRect, useForceUpdate, useLiveRef, usePrevious, and useSafeLayoutEffect, as well as a new FocusTrap component. Additionally, the Breadcrumb component received fixes for RTL support, and the Group component was updated to handle invalid children appropriately.
https://chatgpt.com/share/67aff366-db20-8011-8549-861b1fc31c...
https://github.com/slundi/RatioUp
https://github.com/anthonyraymond/joal
The smallest amount of seeding possible would be metadata, presumably not subject to copyright.
If you have specified in your robots.txt that you do not want the page(s) or directories ingested then only the url is indexed (if it is linked from another page). It does prevent the public display of the content of a page and creation description/summary.
I’m on mobile at the moment so I haven’t been able to dig too deep, but here’s [0] a query that returns the metadata for everything modified since Jan 1st (add more rows at the end if it’s cut off). I don’t think it shows deletes directly, but it can be compared to the current catalog. API documentation here [1]
[0] https://catalog.data.gov/api/3/action/package_search?q=metad...
[1] https://data.gov/developers/apis/
*fixed first url
>In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#201
You are responsible for infringing works you publish, whether they are produced by commission or employee.
Due diligence refers to the reasonable care, investigation, or steps that a person or entity is expected to take before entering into a contract, transaction, or situation that carries potential risks or liabilities.
Vicarious copyright infringement is based on respondeat superior, a common law principle that holds employers legally responsible for the acts of an employee, if such acts are within the scope and nature of the employment.
The only reason I caught it was that I had gotten a legitimate ticket a month prior for parking too close to the fire hydrant and had marked the curb with chalk at the correct distance. So I tried to dispute the fine and discover that the ticket didn’t actually exist. And the city had no interest in the fake ticket whatsoever. They were just like “yeah, it happens all the time”.
Are the ballistics we learn by physical interaction any different from the factual learning of ballistics that, for example, a squirrel learns, from their physical interactions?
No human, in the current epoch of education where copyright has been applicable, has learned, benefited, or exclusively created anything behreft of copyright. Please provide a proof otherwise if you truly believe so.
You mean the author. The creator of a commissioned work is the author under copyright law, the owner or copyright “holder” is the commissioner of the work or employer of the employee that created the work as a part of their job.
The author may contractually retain copyright ownership per written agreement prior to creation, but this is not the default condition for commissioned, “specially ordered”, works, or works created by an employee in the process of their employment.
The only way an employer/commissioner would be responsible (vicarious liability) for copyright infringement of a commissioned work or work produced by an employee would be if you instructed them to do so or published the work without performing the duty of due diligence to ensure originality.
You learned English, math, social studies, science, business, engineering, humanities, from a McGraw Hill textbook? Sorry, all creative works you’ve produced are derivative of your educational materials copyrighted by the authors and publisher.
A text prediction tool isn’t a person, the data it is trained on is irrelevant to the copyright infringement perpetrated by the end user. They should perform due diligence to prevent liability.
There are cases where infringement by negligence that could be argued, but as long as there is clear effort to prevent copying in the output of the tool, then there is no tort.
If the models are creating copies inadvertently and separately from the efforts of the end users deliberate efforts then yes, the creators of the tool would likely be the responsible party for infringement.
If I ask an LLM for a story about vampires and the model spits out The Twilight Saga, that would be problematic. Nor should the model reproduce the story word for word on demand by the end user. But it seems like neither of these examples are likely outcomes with current models.
As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user.
If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox.
If I coax your copyrighted work out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright, not Apple.
If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.
Even if (as I’ve seen argued ad nauseaum) a model was trained on copyrighted works on a piracy website, the copyright holder’s tort would be with the source of the infringing distribution, not the people who read the material.
Not to mention, I can walk into any public library and learn something from any book there, would I then owe the authors of the books I learned from a fee to apply that knowledge?
I meant the Amazon ip addresses that are causing you trouble so I can preemptively block them.
Also, there is an email to contact:
amazonbot@amazon.com
Full quote: > "Particularly around bigger companies that have complex permissions around their SharePoint or their Office 365 or things like that, where the Copilots are basically aggressively summarizing information that maybe people technically have access to but shouldn't have access to," he explained.
Berkowitz said salary information, for example, might be picked up by a Copilot service.
"Now, maybe if you set up a totally clean Microsoft environment from day one, that would be alleviated," he told us. "But nobody has that. People have implemented these systems over time, particularly really big companies. And you get these conflicting authorizations or conflicting access to data."
Citation needed. The execution of Jews by gas chamber during the holocaust was not a public event.