We need an assumed and exclusive right to our own likenesses and fast.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
180 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
83534 readers
1602 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We do, AI companies just don't respect it.
Lets not throw out freedom of panorama because of AI.
Doesn't even matter. The systems they built for copyright enforcement are absolute shit and easily abused if you have a lot of money, as designed. And with AI added to the mix, it's all automated so none of it will work ad it should and they don't care to fix it. Disney or whoever can just launch constant copyright claims and cripple small IP owners even when they're completely ok the wrong.
Because YouTube’s copyright claim system operates without individual human review of each dispute
Bots telling bots that humans aren't human...
There's an easy solution to this:
Legislation that requires giant trillion dollar companies actually employ living breathing humans who can perform a task rather than automate it despite that not working and then just not caring.
And people are going to say that's hard...
But all we need to do is pass a single law that says if AI fucks up, the CEO of the company is personally and financially liable because he's the one that ultimately entrusted the task to AI.
Do that, and suddenly corps wouldn't hand everything to AI as intentional incompetence.
If we don't do it soon, corps will just blame AI for everything and declare no one is ever at fault
An AI can never be held accountable, therefore an AI must ~~never~~ always make a management decision.
The system is working as intended
I mean, the concept of a corporation was created as a consequence dodge to begin with…
Kind of?
Like a thousand years ago in Italy the concept started.
A guy with a bunch of money, would give a guy with no money and a boat the funds to buy cargo and ship it.
If something bad happened the guy with the boat an no money was liable for the loss of cargo, and wouldn't have the funds to pay, they'd just go bankrupt.
If nothing bad happened, the guy with no money paid back the investor plus profits.
Then it evolved into government enforced monopolies like "East India Trading Co".
Which are more like modern corps, but less like what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure that's what you meant and not the earlier Italian corporations?
Legislation that requires giant trillion dollar companies actually employ living breathing humans who can perform a task rather than automate it despite that not working and then just not caring.
They do. If you or I submit a claim it will go through the process. They have an automated process for the "big boys" that is not the legal copyright process, but it is faster and cheaper for both - it looks like the process, but it isn't.
I'd settle for the government prosecuting every false copyright claim as perjury.
You say that because you're not think of all the times corps beat a valid claim...
Meaning suing a corp now opens you up for criminal charges if you don't win, and less people challenging thru court.
You might be better off asking if something would be a good idea, before thinking of something and immediately recommending it despite not thinking about how it would obviously backfire and end up fucking us over more.
Not necessarily. The standard of proof is different. Just because you couldn't prove to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities) that they infringed your copyright, it doesn't mean the claim was false to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
I’d settle for the government prosecuting every false copyright claim as perjury
First you said every one...
Now you're saying just some...
This isnt going to be productive, best of luck with your future endeavers. But I won't be available to answer any other questions.
no worries, I didn't sign any of those contracts and loans. ai did. get AI to pay it back
There’s an easy solution to this:
Legislation
Legislation. A famously easy to advance and trivial to enforce solution to any social problem
This feels like the kind of slam dunk legal case some law firm would be happy to take on contingency. People will keep doing this if there are no consequences.
Seriously it seems like the real winners with our current landscape are the lawyers.
You can pretty much always assume that's the case with the US legal system. The lawyers always win, sometimes their clients do as well but that's a lot rarer.
The lawyers always win
Steven Robert Donziger (born September 14, 1961) is an American former attorney known for his legal battles with Chevron, particularly Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. and other cases in which he represented over 30,000 farmers and Indigenous people who suffered environmental damage and health problems caused by oil drilling in the Lago Agrio oil field of Ecuador. The Ecuadorian court awarded the plaintiffs $9.5 billion ($13 billion in 2024 dollars) in damages, which led Chevron to withdraw its assets from Ecuador and launch legal action against Donziger in the US. In 2011, Chevron filed a RICO (anti-corruption) suit against Donziger in New York City. The case was heard by US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who determined that the ruling of the Ecuadorian court could not be enforced in the US because it was procured by fraud, bribery, and racketeering activities. As a result of this case, Donziger was disbarred from practicing law in New York in 2018.
Donziger was placed under house arrest in August 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of criminal contempt of court, which arose during his appeal against Kaplan's RICO decision, when he refused to turn over electronic devices he owned to Chevron's forensics experts. In July 2021, US District Judge Loretta Preska found him guilty, and Donziger was sentenced to 6 months in jail in October 2021. While Donziger was under house arrest in 2020, twenty-nine Nobel laureates described the actions taken by Chevron against him as "judicial harassment." Human rights campaigners called Chevron's actions an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). In April 2021, six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus demanded that the Department of Justice review Donziger's case. In September 2021, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the pre-trial detention imposed on Donziger was illegal and called for his release. Having spent 45 days in prison and a combined total of 993 days under house arrest, Donziger was released on April 25, 2022
I was expecting that to end with him killing himself with two bullets to the back of the head
On what grounds? Google's terms of service say they can take down anything they want for any reason. If someone starts a copyright case you can go go court, but all this is carefully/legally designed such that there is no downsides to "mistakes"
That fabricated music was then distributed across platforms using a company called Vydia.
Definately not Leather Jacket Man of nVidia...
Where Metallica at?
Beginning to think copyright has become a tool of the plutocracy to harass and dispossess the working class.
I've seen this before. The great copyright battle continues, companies vs. peoples...
Given the current media, copyright, and business environment, why haven't we seen this kind of reverse-piracy pursued as a deliberate business model? Buy some IP rights cheap from YouTube "content creators" who have given up, use your AI-powered robot to find vaguely similar stuff from creators who are still working, and copyright-claim it all?
It's pretty evident there would be no downside.
Maybe small YouTubers should get together and create such a business, just to force the system to change. Make copyright claims against Paramount, CBS, etc. Make them barely plausible. Make thousands of them, from behind a rotating cast of shell companies. Make AI-powered, trust-the-claimant style copyright claims unworkable. Hey, it's just the free market regulating itself.
Copyright claims are under penalty of perjury - you can go to prison for making them in bad faith.
What Patamount/CBS/etc are doing is not a copyright claim, it is a backdoor google has given them - but not you - that lets them bypass the legal process and get things taken down - but if they are wrong there is no legal issue for them. From the outside it looks exactly like a copyright claim, and in spirit it is - by legally it is not a copyright claim in important ways.
If "Vydia" can get access to this mechanism, it can't be that hard, can it?
I do not know how hard it is to get access to this. That is a good question to ask - but also read the fine print if you get access as it may not be any better than the legal process for you.
It is a business model: patent trolls'.
The Nvidia thing was taken down because an Italian TV station aired it and then submitted a DMCA
Are we being serious right now bro?!
