Not sure this argument works unless you are willing to give away the other property on death like houses, stocks, farms, etc. Maybe 60 years is too long, but that doesn't seem to be your argument.
Well, they can't say no if you are already in possession of the image.
Certainly, they are under no obligation to take the photo, deliver the photo, host the photo on a server, but once you have the photo, there is no legal mechanism from preventing you from using it. Your arguments in this thread have gone: copyright protects photos of public domain works -> well people can still sue you -> well people don't have to give you access. You have arrived at the truth: museums don't have to take photos or share them with you. They own the physical artwork and can control physical access to it. I don't think that was in dispute.
Well, then your wife and her publisher are partially responsible for the continual erosion of our rights. The public domain is important and worth defending.
People can sue for anything they like and yet we still mangage to get up in the morning and do things. Bridgeman was 25 years ago — I would be curious if in that time, you can point to any cases where someone has challenged the use of a photographic reproduction of a public domain work? My hunch is no — not because people don't want to make money licensing things or enjoy going to court, but because most people actually agree with the premise of the decision.
This was a nice idea that was tested and failed in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... Making a reproduction with a camera does not create a new copyright because copyright protects creative expression, not skill with a camera.
It seems like these are all already in the public domain. They were already free to use however we liked and neither the Getty nor anyone else could use copyright to prevent that. It is nice that the Getty is providing some scanning and hosting to make them accessible, though.
The article specifically mentions Irises by Van Gogh, but the link (https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103JNH) takes you to a page where it seems like you have to ask nicely and agree to terms to use this public domain image.
In what sense is a novel, never-before-seen image that comes out of DALL·E 3 "encoded in" in the system? The image may be, in a sense, encoded in the latent space of images, but so is every image (of the same dimensions) that ever has been or will be.
Not sure we read the same article. The first point under "Decide how to respond" is "1. Ignore" (although it suggests this is risky if ignore includes continuing what lead to the C&D)
Amazon drives me absolutely nuts. I clicked on the link for Polya's 'How to Solve It' and it took me to a page with a $69.99 paperback and a link to a $10 e-textbook. I click the textbook link and now the paperback link is to an identical looking $16.45 book, the only difference I can tell is that it is the "reprint" edition (aren't they all reprints given the original was published in 1945?). The reviews and most information other than weight and size are the same. Which do I choose? Will I regret not having whatever was worth $53.54 in the original link. There doesn't seem to be anyway to know if I am buying some fly-by-night poorly printed edition for $16.45 or getting a good deal because they all seem to be the same product. I've seen so much garbage on Amazon lately, I just don't trust anything, not even the books.
The much more likely scenario is that there is a precedent-setting court case. This is how it happened with practically every other instance of copyright bumping into technology.
It's seems just like a poor choice of words and semantic argument around the term "violate". Fair use is an affirmative defense — you concede you did this thing that would be illegal if not for this other extenuating information/circumstance. This is similar to claiming self-defense in a murder case — yes I killed that person, but it's not murder since I can show it was self-defense.
In this case it would be 'yes, I used this copyrighted work in a way that would be infringement were it not a fair use, but here's why it's fair-use.'
There's really no reason for anyone to be confident that this is or is not fair use. The law around fair use is a quagmire of conflicting ideas, cases, and opinions and most of the law is in the form of precedents since the letter of the law is so vague.
One only needs to read the Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. In this case, it was found to not be fair use, but with a forceful dissent from Elena Kagan. And this is just a straight-up use of a photograph / art-piece. Add technology to the mix and things get really messy quickly.
> possibly a derivative work of all of the works that went into its training.
or… it is possibly a transformative work of the all the works that went into it's training, which would lead to a strong fair use argument. Given how permissive the courts have been with transformative work, this seems like an easier argument to make.
For sure, that could be an instance of infringement depending on how it is used. But that's a minuscule percentage of the output and still might be fair use (read the decision in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). But even if that instance is determined to be infringement, it doesn't mean the process of training models on copyrighted work is also infringement.
Unfortunately, it's not easy to make this legal argument given how copyright law only protects fixed, tangible expressions, not ideas, concepts, principles, etc. and has a gaping hole called 'fair use.'
Yeah this…the conclusion I would have drawn is not that the gold star took between 2-5 on average, but rather, 85% of people who self-select as enjoying a programming challenge where not able to finish more than half the tasks. Not that that's bad — seems slightly above par for the leaderboards I was involved in — just that the conclusion is really misleading.
I think it grossly mischaracterizes what copyright protects to describe is as "most of the knowledge, research and learning materials". Still I agree, that the extensions of copyright length and the behavior/incentives of publishers works against the original intent of copyright. Having said that, publishers only have control of copyright because authors give it to them. Copyright rests with the creator — the system where people are compelled to sign this over to publishers is a different (but of course related) problem. Scientists who are tired of the predatory behavior of publishers have other choices today. It's not clear what alternative you are proposing.
If you register your work, which requires some effort, but is not prohibitively expensive or difficult, you can sue for statutory damages, which are substantial enough (up to $150k for willful infringement) that lawyers will work on contingency. There are many individual artists how have been successful here. The law actually has some real teeth that individuals can use to protect their work.
I don't think most people believe we are better off without copyright. I think people believe that copyright protects specific concrete expressions and that fair use exists to allow others to build on ideas in transformative ways. It's not clear where building a learning model from this work sits in this context, hence the court cases.
Also, it's a subtle difference, but copyright is not intended to solve the problem of companies profiting off of artist's works, it is intended to promote the progress of science and useful arts. It attempts to do this by giving creators limited exclusive rights.
Same. I have various "accounts" with google to manage various services and I can never find the right place to login for the set of services I am looking for.
This is not a fair take. To know enough about something like a different religion is not something you just go fix. It's not like reading the Wikipedia page on Taoism will give me the cultural context to evaluate how a joke about Taoism will make people feel. Give how often otherwise smart people make insensitive remarks about classes of people they should be familiar with (at least in the US, like women, native Americans, Mexicans, etc) I suspect "fixing it" is harder that you realize and an easier way is to simply ask (which I did).
I was thinking of sharing this with some younger colleagues on slack and paused. Is this a little culturally insensitive by today's standards? I work with someone from China and have no idea what their thoughts on using the Tao like this would be. On the other hand, maybe I'm being overly sensitive.
It does quite a few things well especially around helping website developers comply with section 508 accessibility requirements. They also do a lot of user testing a research which is reflected in the guidance for the various components. For example something as simple as asking someone to enter their name can be nuanced when dealing with a large diverse population: https://designsystem.digital.gov/patterns/create-a-user-prof...
But also, since they’ve decided to use someone else’s icon system, taxpayers are not paying for yet another icon system, when an existing one under an Apache license is available.