Did he ever have commercial rights to it or did he just own a url
Apparently some NFT sellers are including commercial rights with purchases now, but the transfer of ownership of those rights further down the line is unclear, because NFTs.
+5
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Several Youtube lawyers have done videos on it and... Maybe. Probably for practical purposes because nobody with standing is actually likely to sue, but if you dragged a judge off the golf course and read this story to them they could probably tell you more arguments for no than yes.
Bored Ape Yact Club has a public contract saying whoever holds an NFT has certain commercial rights to the character in it. BUT there are a whole bunch of problems, a lot of which come back to the way the token can be passed between owners without creating a relationship between the new holder and the actual owner, and the way they can be passed without mutual consent and without viable recourse.
The former issue is helped because the owners are almost true believers - they clearly don't believe the NFT represents copyright, because they bothered to enumerate the rights transferred with the token. So while they might be able to argue in bad faith that the rights didn't go with the NFT on resale, just trying would be the end of their scam, and succeeding would be the death knell of the entire NFT *thing*. So they need to be sure they'll win *and* that they'll get enough out of winning to be worth it.
The latter is a weird one, because while certain aspects of IP and contract law could be used to argue that only the first purchaser of the NFT has the relationship and meeting of minds to claim a contractual relationship with BAYC, *if* we accept that all NFT holders gain those rights, then having it stolen absolutely means the entire rights were stolen and in this case there is no recourse to recover them.
Except one recourse: BAYC owns the rights and only licenses them through the NFT, and they could just issue a normal contractual license to Green so the show can continue without the NFT. This is another nuclear option - it would destroy their scam and put the ultimate lie to NFTs themselves, so they're only going to do this for more money than yet another cancelled-mid-season Fox Sunday night fuckstick of a show is going to be worth.
There's also another issue stemming from the Naruto v. Slater decision, which was bafflingly broad and heavy handed and potentially strips intellectual property rights from anything with a procedural or emergent aspect. It's already been used to deny copyright protection for images captured by automated cameras (because at least one step was not performed actively by human hands), for neural network generated works (because at least one step is not performed by human hands), and for accidentally recorded images or videos (because while all steps were performed by human hands, at least one was not performed knowingly and with creative intent). If push came to shove, NvS would invalidate the copyright on BAYC because they are procedurally assembled from an asset collection (unless *this* was finally the last absurd straw that got the decision overturned as precedent).
Did he ever have commercial rights to it or did he just own a url
Apparently owning an ape means you have exclusive rights to that specific ape. I thought like you that that was really stupid but that’s how it be.
How much is "this URL is associated with my ID in this online ledger" actually ownership? Is it a legal thing?
There's nothing to establish or imply ownership in most cases.
BAYC actually has a written license, which is a tier above 99% of these things, but they also sit on the untested ground of an uncharted legal gray zone so who the fuck actually knows.
I feel like this might be the thread to discuss the penis flytrap
The bad news is it’s a vulnerable species with a small distribution that’s threatened both by human development and IG ladies that want to pose for pictures with it
Did he ever have commercial rights to it or did he just own a url
Apparently owning an ape means you have exclusive rights to that specific ape. I thought like you that that was really stupid but that’s how it be.
How much is "this URL is associated with my ID in this online ledger" actually ownership? Is it a legal thing?
There's nothing to establish or imply ownership in most cases.
BAYC actually has a written license, which is a tier above 99% of these things, but they also sit on the untested ground of an uncharted legal gray zone so who the fuck actually knows.
An animation would also be a derivative work. So even if you have the separate contract that actually confers copyright to the picture (since an NFT does not), it doesn't necessarily mean you have rights to create derivative works. That's besides the issue that any animation is almost certain to run into copyright violations with other pictures since they are all algorithmically generated with very minor differences between the pictures.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I feel like this might be the thread to discuss the penis flytrap
The bad news is it’s a vulnerable species with a small distribution that’s threatened both by human development and IG ladies that want to pose for pictures with it
Maybe don't inline a picture of a plant that looks just like a giant dick.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+9
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
There's also another issue stemming from the Naruto v. Slater decision
I just want to point out that this is a real case and it is absolutely not what you think it is
Unless you think it's a case about a monkey named Naruto suing for copyright on selfies taken with a wildlife photographer's camera that the photographer then sold as a book titled Monkey Selfies. Then it's exactly what you think it is
Naruto lost the case, as it was ruled only human beings are capable of pressing a copyright claim
I feel like this might be the thread to discuss the penis flytrap
The bad news is it’s a vulnerable species with a small distribution that’s threatened both by human development and IG ladies that want to pose for pictures with it
The Venus flytrap gets the "Venus" part of its name because its flowers are really pretty (like the goddess Venus) and are white, like the planet Venus in the sky. The plant is not from Venus. The "Flytrap" part comes from its obvious bug-eating attributes.
This is, however...what shall I call it? A "comfortable fallacy." You often see this story maintained in books about carnivorous plants, but this is because of an article that John Ellis wrote in 1768. This is what you would call a cover story:
"...and from the beautiful Appearance of its Milk-white Flowers, and the Elegance of its Leaves, thought it well deserved one of the Names of the Goddess of Beauty, and therefore called it Dionaea."
The true reason that Venus is part of this plant's name due to the dirty minds of the kooky naturalists and nuserymen (such as John & William Bartram, Peter Collinson, William Darlington, Arthur Dobbs, John Ellis, and Daniel Solander). When they looked at the plant, they saw in its amazing behavior and attractive form (two red, glistening lobes, surrounded by hairs, sensitive to the touch), something that reminded them of female genitalia of their own species. Indeed!
Basically we have PETA being a dumbass as usual and a weird judge to thank for copyright around procedural works being weird.
It does seem to suggest that a self-learning emergent AI cannot be owned by humans which feels like an amazing cultural ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Skynet doesn't need to kill us - just sue for emancipation
Basically we have PETA being a dumbass as usual and a weird judge to thank for copyright around procedural works being weird.
It does seem to suggest that a self-learning emergent AI cannot be owned by humans which feels like an amazing cultural ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Skynet doesn't need to kill us - just sue for emancipation
The decision doesn't say anything about ownership, only about copyright. You can own an AI, but you can probably own copyright on the base code and the program in its untrained form, any files generated to store the training can't be copyrighted because not all steps in the process were by a human acting intentionally and with creative intent.
Which is *also* kind of a shit precedent to have on the books. Neural nets are easy, but they're only as good as their training and quality training is hard. Like the AI that could identify melanomas from benign moles (because in the training data melanomas had a ruler or measuring tape), or the one that could identify mass shooters by their childhood pictures (because in the training data all the odd numbered files were shooters and even numbered files were innocents). So the future market for AI products is going to be much more about training than programming, and NvS potentially gutted that.
I don't think "must be done by a human at all steps to gain copyright" is a valid reading of the Naruto decision but, regardless, copyright projections in the US are so ridiculously overbroad I'm also not going to lose any sleep over some works becoming ineligible.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I just think in a future sci-fi debate about AI rights that having a previous court ruling that says "Once the AI takes its growth into its own hands you have no copyright claim to the process or eventual product" is an intriguing stepping stone towards the courts having to recognize said future sci-fi AIs as having autonomy and civil rights. Basically if the law already says a self-learning AI automatically invalidates a portion of control by the creator over the AI itself, then who's to say it shouldn't eventually invalidate all control of the creator over the AI?
Basically we have PETA being a dumbass as usual and a weird judge to thank for copyright around procedural works being weird.
It does seem to suggest that a self-learning emergent AI cannot be owned by humans which feels like an amazing cultural ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Skynet doesn't need to kill us - just sue for emancipation
The decision doesn't say anything about ownership, only about copyright. You can own an AI, but you can probably own copyright on the base code and the program in its untrained form, any files generated to store the training can't be copyrighted because not all steps in the process were by a human acting intentionally and with creative intent.
Which is *also* kind of a shit precedent to have on the books. Neural nets are easy, but they're only as good as their training and quality training is hard. Like the AI that could identify melanomas from benign moles (because in the training data melanomas had a ruler or measuring tape), or the one that could identify mass shooters by their childhood pictures (because in the training data all the odd numbered files were shooters and even numbered files were innocents). So the future market for AI products is going to be much more about training than programming, and NvS potentially gutted that.
No, training of a neural net expert system would be covered under trade secrets law, not copyright.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I've yet to read the opinion, but I'm thinking the logical assumption would be that if you photograph yourself next to an object you didn't create, then you don't gain the copyright on the image of that object?
Someone setting a camera/program to autonomously create a picture has as much intent to create the subsequent work as Jackson Pollock did when he yeeted paint at a canvas if you ask me. It’s just a tool.
+3
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
In a stunt that counts as ingenious and little bizarre, someone secretly installed an operational electrical outlet on a traffic signal in Florida.
The device was found by Fort Walton Beach Officer Christopher Carter at the intersection of Perry Avenue and US-98, and closer inspection revealed it was not intended to switch the light from red to green.
Instead, it was being used as a makeshift charging station for phones and other electrical devices. Investigators realized this after finding a plug attached to a charging device of some kind.
In a stunt that counts as ingenious and little bizarre, someone secretly installed an operational electrical outlet on a traffic signal in Florida.
The device was found by Fort Walton Beach Officer Christopher Carter at the intersection of Perry Avenue and US-98, and closer inspection revealed it was not intended to switch the light from red to green.
Instead, it was being used as a makeshift charging station for phones and other electrical devices. Investigators realized this after finding a plug attached to a charging device of some kind.
Charge my phone while waiting for the bus sounds pretty great
Forgive my ignorance here, but are vibrators especially chock-full of magnets that would throw off the plane's compass? Is it any different than a couple of laptops or some console controllers?
GNU Terry Pratchett
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Forgive my ignorance here, but are vibrators especially chock-full of magnets that would throw off the plane's compass? Is it any different than a couple of laptops or some console controllers?
Not magnets per se, but metal weights, since the most effective way to generate vibration is to rotate a weight off center. The thing is that you don't normally think about that when you think sex toy.
Posts
Gone funny: His NFTs were stolen in a phishing scam, losing commercial rights to the character in the show. Much twitter mocking ensued.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sarahemerson/seth-green-bored-ape-stolen-tv-show
Apparently some NFT sellers are including commercial rights with purchases now, but the transfer of ownership of those rights further down the line is unclear, because NFTs.
Apparently owning an ape means you have exclusive rights to that specific ape. I thought like you that that was really stupid but that’s how it be.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Bored Ape Yact Club has a public contract saying whoever holds an NFT has certain commercial rights to the character in it. BUT there are a whole bunch of problems, a lot of which come back to the way the token can be passed between owners without creating a relationship between the new holder and the actual owner, and the way they can be passed without mutual consent and without viable recourse.
The former issue is helped because the owners are almost true believers - they clearly don't believe the NFT represents copyright, because they bothered to enumerate the rights transferred with the token. So while they might be able to argue in bad faith that the rights didn't go with the NFT on resale, just trying would be the end of their scam, and succeeding would be the death knell of the entire NFT *thing*. So they need to be sure they'll win *and* that they'll get enough out of winning to be worth it.
The latter is a weird one, because while certain aspects of IP and contract law could be used to argue that only the first purchaser of the NFT has the relationship and meeting of minds to claim a contractual relationship with BAYC, *if* we accept that all NFT holders gain those rights, then having it stolen absolutely means the entire rights were stolen and in this case there is no recourse to recover them.
Except one recourse: BAYC owns the rights and only licenses them through the NFT, and they could just issue a normal contractual license to Green so the show can continue without the NFT. This is another nuclear option - it would destroy their scam and put the ultimate lie to NFTs themselves, so they're only going to do this for more money than yet another cancelled-mid-season Fox Sunday night fuckstick of a show is going to be worth.
There's also another issue stemming from the Naruto v. Slater decision, which was bafflingly broad and heavy handed and potentially strips intellectual property rights from anything with a procedural or emergent aspect. It's already been used to deny copyright protection for images captured by automated cameras (because at least one step was not performed actively by human hands), for neural network generated works (because at least one step is not performed by human hands), and for accidentally recorded images or videos (because while all steps were performed by human hands, at least one was not performed knowingly and with creative intent). If push came to shove, NvS would invalidate the copyright on BAYC because they are procedurally assembled from an asset collection (unless *this* was finally the last absurd straw that got the decision overturned as precedent).
How much is "this URL is associated with my ID in this online ledger" actually ownership? Is it a legal thing?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There's nothing to establish or imply ownership in most cases.
BAYC actually has a written license, which is a tier above 99% of these things, but they also sit on the untested ground of an uncharted legal gray zone so who the fuck actually knows.
The bad news is it’s a vulnerable species with a small distribution that’s threatened both by human development and IG ladies that want to pose for pictures with it
The good news is it looks like an engorged dick
https://allthatsinteresting.com/penis-plant-nepenthes-bokorensis
Mod edit: removed phallic plant
An animation would also be a derivative work. So even if you have the separate contract that actually confers copyright to the picture (since an NFT does not), it doesn't necessarily mean you have rights to create derivative works. That's besides the issue that any animation is almost certain to run into copyright violations with other pictures since they are all algorithmically generated with very minor differences between the pictures.
Maybe don't inline a picture of a plant that looks just like a giant dick.
I can't read this and believe it's anything but satire. I know intellectually that it's not but my brain just rejects believing it.
The difference between reality and fiction 8s is that fiction has to make sense.
I just want to point out that this is a real case and it is absolutely not what you think it is
Unless you think it's a case about a monkey named Naruto suing for copyright on selfies taken with a wildlife photographer's camera that the photographer then sold as a book titled Monkey Selfies. Then it's exactly what you think it is
Naruto lost the case, as it was ruled only human beings are capable of pressing a copyright claim
Related:
Link to The Carnivorous Plant FAQ:
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq2880.html#:~:text=The Venus flytrap gets the,its obvious bug-eating attributes.
It does seem to suggest that a self-learning emergent AI cannot be owned by humans which feels like an amazing cultural ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Skynet doesn't need to kill us - just sue for emancipation
The decision doesn't say anything about ownership, only about copyright. You can own an AI, but you can probably own copyright on the base code and the program in its untrained form, any files generated to store the training can't be copyrighted because not all steps in the process were by a human acting intentionally and with creative intent.
Which is *also* kind of a shit precedent to have on the books. Neural nets are easy, but they're only as good as their training and quality training is hard. Like the AI that could identify melanomas from benign moles (because in the training data melanomas had a ruler or measuring tape), or the one that could identify mass shooters by their childhood pictures (because in the training data all the odd numbered files were shooters and even numbered files were innocents). So the future market for AI products is going to be much more about training than programming, and NvS potentially gutted that.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Which seems like a neat conundrum to ponder
No, training of a neural net expert system would be covered under trade secrets law, not copyright.
I didn't know there was an uncanny valley for dogs, but congratulations dude, you found it
Then Elon Musk stole the image they made for the story (and he cropped off the Hard Drive watermark, if you're thinking it was just an accident.)
In response, Hard Drive asked that he not steal their work.
Of course, Musk responded in a... Muskian manner. And so things escalated:
Today's moral comes from Mark Twain: don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
(And to understand why this sort of theft is serious business for these websites):
Charge my phone while waiting for the bus sounds pretty great
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Not magnets per se, but metal weights, since the most effective way to generate vibration is to rotate a weight off center. The thing is that you don't normally think about that when you think sex toy.
That’s one way to fuck up your hard drive.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter