I’m not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to ‘use’ the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky…

If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it’s just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing

I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:

> Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?

The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected

You know people drink water too right? It’s not just a backdrop for your selfies lol

https://mylemmy.win/post/89871

Any instance admin, proper or rogue, gets a ton of information that users won’t normally see.

For .ca specifically: as long as you are a Canadian individual, or have a sufficient connection to Canada, or a Corp with a trademark registered in Canada then you are qualified to own that domain - but as to who is really checking I have no idea… CIRA complainants maybe?

Here’s some info about .world domains https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6300841?hl=en#zippy=%2Cterms-restrictions

Lol so one could say they fucked around and have now found out (yes I realize that was a sarcastic answer)

It’s not so much a matter of whether the service would work or not but whether the corporate directors would be exposed to criminal liability for continuing to provide such services without OFCOM being able to “understand” the encrypted messages: see 99(4) of the Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

And then there’s Maud

Oh is it not banned anymore? Then my bad for using that as an example, but publishers do censor the works of their authors to try and avoid liability

One of life’s truisms: everyone can lose except the lawyers involved

Not sure that’s the best analogy since publishers do have an onus not to publish certain materials (example How would that work out for someone publishing something like the anarchists cookbook?)

Conversely, its not considered feasible for content providers (who don’t generate or police the content BEFORE it’s public) to police the work of content generators (the users). That’s why s.230 of the CDA (imo) does more than the first amendment

Always wanted a “personal” website but felt I wasn’t creative enough to create anything useful enough… Maybe a wiki was the best I could come up with

Care to share what you use the website for exactly?

Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??

Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)

Good dam times ? (Idk)

Amazon argues other large retailers weren’t given the same designation, but is that because Amazon is largest or because the other retailers are already doing a good enough job (in which case no harm in the EU agreeing to include more retailers in the list) or because EU arbitrarily wants Amazon in the list without proof it would make a difference (in which case maybe take another look at the criteria used to make the list).

Imo, it’s fair to ask why Alex Jones’ webstore shouldn’t also have to police disinformation they put out

Totally - something just didn’t sit right seeing you be downvoted for being against CP lol

You’re being downvoted because that admin admitted their mistakes and stepped away from the site (someone plz correct me if I’m wrong)

Relay still works and is moving to a subscribers only model in the coming weeks apparently

I think what you say is fair if not true - one difference (and I’m sure there are more) is these weren’t lands acquired by conquest/military subjugation, but rather by agreement with the landholding populations to live in peace. What actually happened was the indigenous populations were lied to in one way or another such that the European nations never held up their side of the bargains because of ambiguity in the agreements in addition to Europeans plainly lying about what was being agreed to.

I think this is evident in the ways the Canadian Reconciliation Calls to Action use language such as “call upon the Government of Canada…to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation…[which] would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown”

Essentially these lands were never legally taken which is why the indigenous groups can/should lay claim to them. That makes this scenario different than a group being displaced by military conquest (which is technically recognized as a legal, albeit cruel, mechanism for displacing people).