• ghosthand@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I tend to agree with the judge’s assessment. He must make a decision based on existing law and the plaintiff’s claim/argument. You’re right existing law doesn’t cover this aspect of technology which is why there needs to be new laws enacted by Congress. And the courts are put in a no win situation here because we’ve failed to establish new rules and regulations for this new technology.

    The plaintiff’s claim of derivative work doesn’t fit here because of what has already been long established what a derivative work looks like. AI generated images aren’t really derivative works.

    I think rightfully, the court has told them to try again, which is ok.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why it is bad that this is happening in the US.

      You don’t have the concept of the living tree doctrine in your body of law, or if you do, it’s not particularly well developed. It’s all about the writers intent down there.

      • drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Writers intent is sometimes enforced and sometimes not. Ammendments 4-8 are all about criminal rights so it’s very clear that the founders were very concerned about people being accused/convicted of crimes, yet today you can’t be searched without a warrant unless the cop doesn’t like you can can come up with a lie saying he’s sure you were doing something illegal.