Well, I'm singing the "please fill out this form for my insurance company" song if I get robbed, mugged, in an accident. In the case of the missing kid, it depends. Sometimes they'll mobilize if the family's a "good family" as far as they know, but a lot of times they'll just tell you the kid ran away and not look. So I might be very well singing the "please do a video on this" song to the true crime community on youtube.
@Phoenixbouncing Soldiers are more strictly regimented than regular police, I think. Hell, if you fuck up just a little as an MP you are out of that career field. Unfortunately, it's because of a STRONGER hierarchy and if the leader goes bad they all go with him. Which is why when there's war crimes it's usually a whole unit committing them.
Of course, there's also the aspect where the Law of Armed Conflict forbids anyone in the armed forces from doing things that civilian police forces do all the time, like using tear gas.
@hglman Also, I'm hurt. I gave you a distinct example of the use of AI as a tool to assist an artist in that comment so that I could COVER the use of AI as a tool rather than having an AI as the author and you say my argument only covers "simplistic use of AI."
The ruling is ABOUT the simplistic use of AI. Right down at the bottom it says that a human using AI tools is still a human author. Thaler tried to copyright the AI as the author, and himself as owning it due to work-for-hire. The Judge said no. Because if you just put a prompt in and get art out, you are not a creator.
Your examples are all of a human using automated tools to make art when the ruling specifically states that a human using automated tools is an author. The work is only non-copyrightable when AI is the author.
The precedent is of a freaking monkey taking a picture, for asimov's sake. Honestly, photographers do not deserve the shit they're getting piled on them in this thread.
Level of control. Everything in photography is a deliberate choice. Subject, framing, angle. Even a selfie is trying to get just the right angle. You see it with your own eyes, and select the moment you want to capture.
Sure, a straight-on photo of the Mona Lisa is not gonna be copyrightable, it's like a Xerox of the painting. But take this image of the Scranton City Hall for example.
The photographer had to choose the time of day, the exact right spot to stand, the angle to hold the camera, and the overall tone of the picture. It is distinctive from other pictures of Scranton City Hall taken at other times of the day, or from other vantage points.
It is a distinct, deliberate image meant to convey a certain image.
With AI, you enter a prompt and the computer does the framing, angling, pacing, focus...etc.. You don't have any input on the actual process if you are just entering a prompt. Now, you do if you are creating digital art using AI as a tool in your process to do smoothing and such (which is considered human authorship by the copyright office), but for things like ChatGPT and Midjourney where you just enter a prompt? It's not your arrangement unless you choose from a selection of AI outputs and put them together as a series or collage (also considered human authorship).
Scranton City Hall itself is a work designed by Edwin L Walter and Frederick Lord Brown.
If you go in person and take a picture of Scranton City Hall, the photo is your work of art. It is your copyright.
You can create an image of the Scranton City Hall using AI to help with the details, making the choice whether to keep or roll back the AI changes as you work towards the final product, and it will be your art. it would be copyrighted to you.
But if you type "an image of Scranton City Hall at night" into an AI prompt, you are getting a work where the program has determined what the angle, mood, tone, and vantage point is. That's not your art. It is the AI's an AI, like the monkey who took the photograph, is not protected by copyright law and therefore the image is not copyrightable.
What I'm saying is a teen girl angling her wrist to find the exact right angle where a blemish on her forehead and a little extra fat on her cheek is invisible is making more deliberate choices about the final image than a guy who puts "image of a teenaged girl making a duckface" into an AI prompt, and she deserves to have her image copyrighted.
This is bad practice, says the joint report, because for hybrid workplaces, the mix of employees coming and going at different times a week makes it "impossible" for a manager to know how many employees are on site on a given day.
They're taking the wrong lesson from this, and are going to try to force us back to 5 days a week in the office.
That's a WHOLE other can of worms. The guy who made the AI is not necessarily the guy who uses it, and the way it's been made may have been using the efforts of other people without compensation.