I would have sworn that autosave was enabled by default in absolutely every software that has anything to save since like the 2000s
Possible that we're thinking about different features? Like for Microsoft Word, if I save a file to disk, make an edit, then exit out without saving (hitting "cancel" when it asks if I want to save) the disk copy is left untouched. That's how the most tools work as far as I'm aware. It does have crash recovery (which may or may not work better than LibreOffice's crash recovery, no idea).
You’re weird. Autosave is the norm in 2024
I do support challenging the software design before blaming the user, but I feel like I'm being thrown through a bit of a loop here. Autosave, while not unusual, is still the minority behaviour - surely?
I'm checking through tools I have installed and can't find much that autosaves - even Word (tested editing a local file) doesn't seem to autosave as far as I can tell. And, to be fair to the software, I often don't want to overwrite the disk copy automatically (though there are some "best of both worlds" approaches, like with VSCode).
Exactly my point that it is not clear, since it’s exactly Carlin’s likeness. A person who tunes in at a random moment has no idea that this is what it it stated in the beginning and could 100% assume it’s Carlin.
It is incredibly clear. The fact that it would take a person to pause the video before the first three seconds, skip to a random point, ignore that the topic of the standup is events that occurred since his death and being an AI, fail to read the written notices on-screen and in the description, etc. is evidence of this.
using their exact likeness as a basis is not transformative work
I think you're still getting wires crossed between different domains of IP law in a way that makes your objection meaningless. Transformative nature comes in as a part of a fair use defense specifically to copyright infringement - whereas elements of a person's likeness, like their face or voice, are not protected by copyright.
You'd have to be careful about Nike's trademark and the sales contract between you and the buyer. In the George Carlin case, neither of these apply.
Do you honestly think that context will matter legally, whether the dead “person” is talking/singing about love or their own death?
Yes, there is legal relevance to whether a reasonable person would interpret the remarks as really being from George Carlin, thus painting him in a false light, and the whole concept of George Carlin riffing on events occurring after his death (plus the disclaimer preceding the video and in the description) is relevant to determining that.
When I say copyright, I mean in a general sence. Infringement of IP might be a better suited phrase, but I assumed the synonymity was implied.
I don't see how this tracks. Consider your following comment:
You’re either too dumb or stubborn to even google what “transformative work” is. Typical “AI” techbro."
Surely that's a reference to the character factor of fair use, a defense specifically against copyright infringement? It's not a term used in trademark law as far as I'm aware for example (and "George Carlin" is not a registered trademark anyway).
Were you just referring to, and telling them to google, the broad layperson definition of "transformative"? In which case I think you've misunderstood their comment, because I'm pretty sure at the very least they were referring to the fair use factor.
By selling the bedicked shoe as Nike you are implying that Nike has made this “offensive” shoe and are selling it.
If you do lie to the buyer that it was a brand new Nike shoe, it'd be the concern of the sales contract between you and the buyer, and trademark law.
The Beatles have just officially released a song with their dead singer’s voice.
Lennon's vocals were recorded before his death, and thus aren't about his own death and events occurring after it.
No?
To quote the US Copyright office:
Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain
an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-
tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words.
Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity
to support a claim in copyright include
The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
[...]
Go to Spotify and try uploading a track as Michael Jackson, see if copyright “doesn’t protect names or titles.”
I don't think Spotify allows individuals, as opposed to music distributors, to upload tracks at all - but more importantly their policies on impersonation are not what defines copyright.
Neither example is copyright infringement. The first-sale doctrine allows secondary markets - you are fine by copyright to sell your bedicked shoes to someone.
A sticky note is not a legal disclaimer
Have you watched the video? It's a thousand times more obvious than any legal disclaimer I've ever seen. They are not in any way hiding the fact that it is using AI.
There are many works that talk about death, resurrection, being undead, etc.
Talking about death in the abstract is entirely possible while you're still alive. Creating material ~two decades after your own death about your death and events that happened since then, less so.
has nothing to do with the title being an obvious infringement.
Copyright doesn't protect names or titles.
I think it'd be entirely plausible to argue that, while transformative, current generative AI usage often falls short on the other fair use factors.
I don't really see how it can be argued that the linked example - relatively minor edits to a photograph - are more transformative than generative AI models. What is your criteria here?
The title is "George Carlin: I'm Glad I'm Dead (2024)" and it talks about his own death. Even if someone believes in communication beyond the grave to the extent that they could still mistake it as really being George Carlin, it's immediately explained as AI in the opening segment of the video.
Whether it's presented as real seems a reasonable line to me.
Fox News could not use it to mislead people into thinking Biden said something that he did not, but parody like "Sassy Justice" from the South Park creators (using a Trump deepfake) would still be fine.
It's possible to get away with quite a lot under transformative use even when it's commercial, consider Cariou v. Prince for example: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/landmark-copyright-lawsuit-cariou-v-prince-is-settled-59702/
In Fallout with scrapping sure, but TES? There are a ton of items, like all the kitchenware, that are just for decoration and served no greater purpose.
Not sure if it's intentional but I've noticed there are some ways to anger the security "faction" without getting a bounty - I think it's when you do something directly to a guard (like intimidation ability) but are sneaking so don't actually get caught doing it.
Exiting the area and sleeping for 48 UT hours should hopefully make them forget about you.
- Hold RMB to focus the cutter's laser, mining ~6X faster
- Bind Alt as a secondary jump key to boost forward
- Companions only need one ammo to use a weapon indefinitely, including grenades
- In the lodge, the safe in your room and some of the containers in the basement have infinite storage. Some containers in procedurally generated structures do too - but none as convenient as the lodge
- Cancel your ship boost (with S) to evade missiles without fully using up your boost, or spam boost-cancel in combat for the engine systems perk challenge
- With a precise click, you can land between multiple biomes and build an outpost with resources from all. I've got a triple, and suspect a quadruple is possible
- Setting up an outpost with some extractors and a large amount of storage, then spam-crafting items 99 at a time, is super-fast XP
- Cargo links work in real-time (every 3 minutes) rather than game time. For the trick above, you'll need to produce all ingredients in one outpost (e.g: Archimedes III for drill rigs, which are a rare component so give more XP than just adaptive frames/etc.) if you want to make full use of sleeping
- Venus, Charybdis IV, and Katydid III all have 1:100 ratios for sleeping (1 hour slept = 100 UT hours)
- Being over-encumbered still allows you to sprint (but not fast travel)
- Health drain from moving with full CO2 won't fully kill you
- The more over-encumbered you are, the faster O2 drains. Being very over-encumbered can even overcome personal atmosphere's O2 regen, allowing you to rapidly drain (by stepping forward) then regen (by briefly standing still) your O2 for the fitness challenge perk
- The fitness perk challenge actually requires filling CO2, not just draining O2, and the "Life Begets Life" achievement only counts flora, not organic materials from fauna
- The ship landing animation only plays if you're sitting in your cockpit
- The perk you get from a non-recipe magazine is determined by how many of that series you already found, not the magazine number
- Magazine perks persist through NG+, and magazines respawn
- You get all resources back when destructing outpost modules, or the entire outpost at once
- You can steal starborn ships if you get there before the starborn exit, or have that bug where enemy ships are empty
- You can instantly fully-scan gas/ice giants from space to get survey data (and Vlad buys survey data for the most money)
- Killing fauna and collecting minerals/flora counts as scanning
- For minerals you can scan the ground areas (where you can place extractors) and dropped item versions (even if taken from elsewhere), not just the mineable rock deposits
- After unlocking ship thrusters, use them by holding space and a direction
- Novablast disruptor and magsniper can be charged by holding left click
- You can access ship's cargo from the menu if within 250m
- You can place storage adjacent on all directions, like this: https://i.imgur.com/eqfiXvD.png
- Hold E to pick up a physics prop, then hold and release R to throw it - the longer you hold R, the further you throw
- Laser weapons can be used through windows/glass
Going by the story DLCs for Fallout 4 and Skyrim, I'd expect it to be mostly orthogonal to the main quest so that players can experience it regardless of how far along they are.
The DLC could require getting to some point in the "first act" (e.g: meeting constellation, or finding the first temple), but it seems very unlikely that it'll require us to even know about the unity.
My guess is that one of the DLCs will be about House Va'ruun and take us to Va'ruun'kai.
I've been feeling the same. There's a whole system with cargo links, fabricators, power generation, and tiers of extractors, but then nothing you can set up production for seems to have any purpose to mass-produce except setting up even more production.
There is one exception: manually mass-crafting components (on PC you can do 99 in one click) is a good way to farm XP and is a big resource sink. I've currently got an aluminum + iron setup to let me craft hundreds of thousands of adaptive frames, but I think the optimal setup, for most XP per click, would have cargo links shipping all the prerequisite components for an exotic component to one base (probably on Venus, for fastest time skipping [edit: cargo links work on playtime rather than UT time, unfortunately, so sleeping doesn't work]).
In terms of more intentional mechanics, something like being able to manufacture ammo (even if it took a lot of resources) would give it a purpose within the context of the rest of the game.
It doesn't have "memory" of what it has generated previously, other than the current conversation. The answer you get from it won't be much better than random guessing.
For my understanding artistic works get copyright from the moment of their creation. This would allow one to pick battles based on how lucrative they may potentially be.
In the US, you need your copyright to be registered in order to file an infringement suit or be granted statutory damages. This must be done prior to the infringement, so they wouldn't be able to pick and choose which to register after the fact. The fact that (unregistered) copyright arises from the moment of creation is true, but not particularly useful here.
You dont really need art museum of babel for this but you just tons of different works that may contain unique characters, structures or objects similar to what someone might be able to imagine or has already imagined.
Copyright is not the same as patents or trademarks; someone coincidentally creating something very similar or even an exact replica of your work is not infringement.
If whether you copied from their work or independently made similar choices is under question - then close similarity of the works could skew the balance of probabilities. However, the courts will be able to see that coincidental similarity is far more likely if a colossal number of images have been registered.
You may draw fan art with disney characters but its actually illegal to sell said art work without Disneys aproval until copyright expires.
It's still copyright infringement even if you publish it non-commercially, but a Fair Use defense would likely hold up.
To file an infringement suit they'd need to have paid registration for each work which, even for the exorbitantly rich, wouldn't be remotely feasible for all logical arrangements of words/images. There's probably not even enough space in the Universe or time until its heat death to generate and store all such images.
Even if they did, copyright doesn't protect against against independently created works that happen to be similar or even identical - so they wouldn't be exhausting some limited set of possible works by doing so.