#protect authors intellectual property

[glamurai56]

Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists

#no ai art #fuck ai art #fuck ai writing #anti ai art #govern ai #control ai #ai art is not art #protect musicians intellectual property #protect intellectual property #protect artists intellectual property #protect authors intellectual property #protect artists #protect artists jobs #protect authors jobs

[erika-xero]

Beware, the long post incoming. Pro tips for artists who work on commissions!

DISCLAIMER: I do not have, like, a HUGE online following and can’t be called a popular or viral artist, but I do have some experience and I’ve been working as a freelance artist for more that five years, so I could share a few tips on how to work with clients with my fellow artists. Scroll down for the short summary!

First of all, you always need to have your Terms of Service written down in a document that is accessible for your potential clients. And by terms of service I don’t mean a set of rules like “I don’t draw mecha, anthro and N/S/F/W”. There is much more into it, than you may think when you first start drawing commissions.

You’ll need to understand how copyright law/author’s rights in your country works (for example, US copyright or Russian author’s rights, be sure to check your local resources). There are a bunch of sites where you can actually read some legal documents (. I know it might be boring, but TRUST me, you WILL need this knowledge if you choose this career path.

Russia, for example, is plagued with shops selling anime merchandise. The merchandise is usually printed somewhere in the basement of the shop and the shop owners literally rip off other people’s intellectual property. If the artist ask them to remove their IP from the shop the owners usually try to fool them with lies about how the IP works. They will tell you, that you have to register copyright on every single drawing and if you don’t do it anyone can reproduce and sell your artwork. In reality, copyright law in most countries simply doesn’t work this way. Once you create an original work and fix it, take a photograph, write a song or blog entry, paint an artwork, you already are the author and the owner. Yes, there are certain procedures of copyright registration, which is only a step to enhance the protection, but you become an author the very moment you create a piece of art, and no one have a right to take your creation from you. Knowing your rights is essential.

Some of your commissioners may try to scam you too, but most of them might simply not be aware of how copyright law works. I literally had people asking me questions whether or not the character I am commissioned to draw becomes MY intellectual property. I literally had to convince the person (who was legit scared, since the commissioned piece was going to be a first image of his character ever created) otherwise. If you have an idea of the character written down or fixed in any other form such as a collage, a sketch, or a concept art -- the character is yours. Artist may have rights to the image they create, but not the character itself. Your potential commissioner must acknowledge that their characters, settings and etc. is still theirs, while your artwork is yours, if your contract doesn’t state otherwise. You can sell the property rights on your artwork to your commissioner if you want, but it is unnecessary for non-commercial commissions. And I strongly advice you to distinguish the non-commercial commissions from commercial ones and set the different pricing for them. Even if you sell ownership of your artwork to your commissioner, you can not sell the authorship. You will always remain an author of your artwork, thus you still have all the author’s rights stated in the legal documents.

Another thing that is absolutely necessary to be stated in your terms of service is information whether (and when) it is possible to get a refund from you. You absolutely have to write it down: no. refunds. for finished. artworks.

You have already invested time and effort to finish an artwork. The job is done and the money is yours. I’ve heard stories of commissioners demanding refund a few months later after the commission was finished and approved by the commissioners, because, quote “I do not want it anymore”. Commissioning an artist doesn’t work this way, artwork is not an item purchased on shein or aliexpress that can be sent back to the seller. It is not a mass production. It is a unique piece of art. Example: My friend once drew a non-commercial commission for a client who tried to use it commercially later on. She contacted him and reminded of the Terms of Service he agreed with, offering him to pay a fee for commercializing the piece instead of taking him to the court or starting a drama. He declined and suddenly demanded a full refund for that commission via Paypal services. My friend contacted the supports and showed them the entire correspondence with that client. She also stated that the invoice he paid included a link to the Terms and Service he had to agree with if he pays that invoid. The money were returned to her.

However, partial refund can be possible at the certain stage of work. For example, the sketch is done, but something goes horribly wrong. Either the client appeared to be a toxic person, or an artist does not have a required skill to finish the job. I suggest you keep the money for the sketch, but refund the rest of the sum. It might be 50/50 like I suggested to my clients before (when I still could work with Paypal), but it really depends on your choise. I suggest not doing a full refund though for many reasons: not only you make yourself vulnerable, but you also might normalize a practice harmful to other artists this way.

The main reason why full refund when the sketch/line-art are done must not be an option is that some clients may commission other artists with lower prices to finish the job. This brings us to the next important point: you absolutely need to forbid your clients from altering, coloring or overpainting your creation or commission other artists to do so. This also protects your artwork from being cropped, changed with Instagram filters or even being edited into a N/S/F/W image. Speaking of which. If you create adult content, you absolutely need to state that to request such a commission, your commissioner must at least be 18/21 years old (depending on your country). And as for the SFW commissions you also have to state that if someone underage commissions an artwork from you it is automatically supposed that they have a parental concern.

There is also a popular way to scam artist via some payment systems, called I-did-not-receive-a-package. Most of the payment systems automatically suppose that you sell goods which have to be physically delivered via postal services. This is why it is important to state (both in the Terms of Service and the payment invoice itself) that what commissioner is about to receive is a digital good.

And the last, but not the least: don’t forget about alterations and changes the commissioner might want to make on the way. Some people do not understand how difficult it may be to make a major change in the artwork when it is almost finished. Always let your commissioners know that all the major changes are only acceptable at early stages: sketch, line-art, basic coloring. Later on, it is only possible to make the minor ones. I prefer to give my commissioner’s this info in private emails along with the WIPs I send, but you can totally state it in your Terms of Service. I do not limit the changes to five or three per commission, but I really do appreciate it when I get all the necessary feedback in time.

To sum this post up, the info essential for your Terms of Service doc is:

- The information on whether or not your commissions are commercial or non-commercial. If they are non-commercial, is there a way to commercialize them? At what cost?

- The information on author’s and commissioner’s rights;

- The information on whether (and when) refunds are possible;

- The prohibition of coloring, cropping, overpainting and other alterations;

- The information on whether or not you provide the commissioner with some physical goods or with digital goods only;

- Don’t forget about your commissioner’s age! If you work with client who is a minor, a parental consern is required. And no n/s/f/w for underage people!

- You may also want to include that you can refuse to work on the commission without explanation in case you encounter a toxic client or feel like it might be some sort of scam.

- I also strongly suggest you work with prepay, either full or 50% of total sum, it usually scares off the scammers. I take my prepay after me and my client agree on a rough doodle of an overall composition.

- I also include the black list of the themes: everyting offensive imaginable (sexism, homophobia, transfobia, racism, for N/S/F/W artists it also might be some certain fetishes and etc). Keep your reputation clean!

- Ban N/F/T and blacklist the commissioners who turn your artworks into them anywayss, don’t be shy <3

These are the things that are absolutely necessary but are so rarely seen in artists’ Terms of Service that it makes me sad. Some of these tips really helped me to avoid scams and misunderstandings. I really hope it helps you all!

#artist's terms of service #terms of service #tips for artists #useful info #useful for artists #art #artist #artworks #artists for hire

[reasonsforhope]

got anything good, boss?

Sure do!

-

"Weeks after The New York Times updated its terms of service (TOS) to prohibit AI companies from scraping its articles and images to train AI models, it appears that the Times may be preparing to sue OpenAI. The result, experts speculate, could be devastating to OpenAI, including the destruction of ChatGPT's dataset and fines up to $150,000 per infringing piece of content.

NPR spoke to two people "with direct knowledge" who confirmed that the Times' lawyers were mulling whether a lawsuit might be necessary "to protect the intellectual property rights" of the Times' reporting.

Neither OpenAI nor the Times immediately responded to Ars' request to comment.

If the Times were to follow through and sue ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, NPR suggested that the lawsuit could become "the most high-profile" legal battle yet over copyright protection since ChatGPT's explosively popular launch. This speculation comes a month after Sarah Silverman joined other popular authors suing OpenAI over similar concerns, seeking to protect the copyright of their books.

Of course, ChatGPT isn't the only generative AI tool drawing legal challenges over copyright claims. In April, experts told Ars that image-generator Stable Diffusion could be a "legal earthquake" due to copyright concerns.

But OpenAI seems to be a prime target for early lawsuits, and NPR reported that OpenAI risks a federal judge ordering ChatGPT's entire data set to be completely rebuilt—if the Times successfully proves the company copied its content illegally and the court restricts OpenAI training models to only include explicitly authorized data. OpenAI could face huge fines for each piece of infringing content, dealing OpenAI a massive financial blow just months after The Washington Post reported that ChatGPT has begun shedding users, "shaking faith in AI revolution." Beyond that, a legal victory could trigger an avalanche of similar claims from other rights holders.

Unlike authors who appear most concerned about retaining the option to remove their books from OpenAI's training models, the Times has other concerns about AI tools like ChatGPT. NPR reported that a "top concern" is that ChatGPT could use The Times' content to become a "competitor" by "creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper's staff."

As of this month, the Times' TOS prohibits any use of its content for "the development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system.""

-via Ars Technica, August 17, 2023

#Anonymous #ask #me #open ai #chatgpt #anti ai #ai writing #lawsuit #united states #copyright law #new york times #good news #hope

[memories-of-ancients]

The Restoration of the Roman Republic ... in the Middle Ages? The Forgotten Commune of Rome

Today it seems men often have Rome on their minds with Tik Toks and polls indicating that men often think about Rome on a daily basis. I'm assuming that most of these thoughts revolve around the Roman Empire, lesser so the Roman republic, some the Eastern Roman (Byzantine Empire), and few think about the Roman monarchy. However I guarantee that almost no one thinks about the medieval Roman Republic known as the Commune of Rome.

In the 12th century central Italy was directly ruled by the Pope through the Papal States. One of the hot topic political issues of the day was the "investiture controversy", which was debate over who had the power to install bishops and other important clergy; the Pope or secular authorities. This evolved into a debate on who would have ultimate governing authority, the Pope, or the secular government, most notably the Holy Roman Empire. At the time, many cities in Italy were growing disgruntled with the rule of the Pope and the rule of nobles who supported the Pope. This resulted in popular uprisings in which cities overthrew the Papal government and declared themselves independent, thus forming various city states and communes in Italy.

In 1143 a wealthy Italian banker named Geordano Pierlione led a revolt against Papal authority, kicking the Pope out of Rome and declaring an independent Commune of Rome. The next year a monk and priest named Arnold of Brescia arrived in the city, becoming the intellectual leader of the movement and establishing the new Roman Republic. Arnold was a controversial reformer who railed against abuses of Church and Papal authority, decried Church corruption, and advocated a thorough reformation of the Church. Among his ideas he believed that clergy needed to return to apostolic poverty, renouncing all wealth and ownership of property, and also renouncing secular political power. Here's a statue of him in Brescia, Italy today.

With Arnold at it's head a new Roman government was formed and modeled after the ancient Roman Republic, with 56 senators who were not of noble class, 4 from each of Rome's medieval districts, and executive authority invested in a "patrician". The new republic refused to use the title "consul" as it had become an inherited noble title after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Nobles and aristocrats above the rank of knight were not allowed and thus most noble titles were abolished.

Of course the Pope, then Lucius II, was not going to tolerate such a rebellion and attempted to take back the city. In 1145 he formed an army and laid siege to the city. Amazingly the Romans drove away the invaders, with Pope Lucius II being killed in the battle after being bonked in the head with a rock.

The new republic flourished; drafting news laws, reforming medieval Roman society, making alliances with other Italian city states and war with others, setting up courts, and minting coins.

The Roman army was reformed, and a new capital building was constructed on the Capitoline Hill known as the Palazzo Senatorio (the Senate Palace), which still stands today but is much different after being heavily renovated by Michelangelo in the 1530's.

Originally the new Roman Republic swore fealty to the Holy Roman Emperor. However Rome and the Empire had a falling out. In 1149 the Roman Senate invited the German king Conrad III to the city to be coronated Roman Emperor. Rome's enemies were growing, so the Roman Senate offered Conrad this title in return for protection. Conrad had already been elected as Holy Roman Emperor and was due to be coronated, but the Roman Senate was proposing that he be THE Roman Emperor, as in like, a real Roman Emperor whose authority is defined by the Roman Senate, and not a Holy Roman Emperor whose authority was defined by the Pope and a loose confederation of high ranking German, Italian, Austrian, and Czech nobles. In the Holy Roman Empire the emperor is elected by the highest ranking nobles of the land. The Roman Senate was claiming that it had the authority to choose Roman emperors as the senate did during the ancient Roman Empire. Well, lets just say that Conrad probably didn't take too kindly to the Roman Senate attempting to usurp the governing structure of the Holy Roman Empire. In the middle ages a group of lower class burghers and knights cosplaying as Roman senators was not a good basis for a Europe spanning universal imperial monarchy. When Conrad died he was already cutting a deal with the Pope to snuff out the republic.

Conrad died in 1152 but his successor, Frederick Barbarossa continued the deal with the Pope to end the Roman Republic. It was one of the few times Frederick and the Pope agreed on anything. In 1155 a combined Papal/Imperial army invaded Rome. The city quickly fell and Arnold of Brescia was captured and burned at the stake. His ashes were scattered into the Tiber River.

Amazingly the Roman Republic lived on. Frederick Barbarossa was coronated by Pope Adrian IV as Holy Roman Emperor, an act which led to a new revolt among the Romans. Frederick put down this revolt, killing 1,000 Romans in the process, but afterwards he simply left the city and never returned after becoming bogged down in the complex politics of Italy. The Pope also left Rome, having to deal with a papal schism, resulting in no one being left in charge of the city and thus another restoration of the Roman Republic.

In 1167 Rome made war on the neighboring city of Tusculum, a long time rival of Rome who had supported the Pope and became a papal capital after the foundation of the republic. The Count of Tusculum appealed for help to the Holy Roman Empire, and Frederick I sent a small army of 1600 men. The Romans had an army of 10,000 made up of peasant militia who were poorly armed and poorly trained. While heavily outnumbered the Imperial army consisted of well armed and trained knights and professional soldiers. The Imperial army easily defeated the Romans at the Battle of Monte Porizio on May 29th, 1167, a battle which would later be called, "the Cannae of the Middle Ages". The Imperial army would continue to march on Rome, but by a stroke of luck for the Romans would be struck with the plague and forced to turn back. The Romans got their revenge against Tusculum in 1183 when they conquered and burned the city to the ground Carthage style.

The beginning of the end of the republic came in 1188 when Pope Clement III made a power sharing deal with the senate in which the people would elect senators but the Pope would have to approve the senators. The senate agreed to this in order to secure the protection of the Pope as the Holy Roman Empire was still a threat. Over the coming decades popes would reduce the number of senators until by the early 13th century, there was just one. Soon that single senate post was directly chosen by the Pope, and eventually it became a hereditary position. Before you knew it, French and Spanish nobles were becoming Roman senators and Roman senators ruled as autocrats at the behest of the Pope. By the end of the 13th century, the Roman Republic was dead.

#history #middle ages #medieval rome #roman republic #commune of rome #holy roman empire #pope

[larkandkatydid]

I don’t think we have to assert that Anne Rice had a “good enough” or “serious enough” reason to hate fanfic and to aggressively go after fanfic of her published work. It’s just that hating fanfic and being protective of your intellectual property is a completely neutral non-problematic stance to have. And that boycotting an author over this makes you a pathetic loser.

#we must not overindulge the insanity of mothers of dead children

[brandyschillace]

If your book was used to train AI:

Important news for #authors whose work has been used by #AI: Writers Guild has a class action suit that might include you, and here are further steps to take.

If you have supported the WGA and SAG-AFTRA, perhaps you will consider supporting this, too. Many thousands of books were taken without knowledge, consent, or acknowledgement and fed into BOOK3 (DATA3) to train AI. New protections are needed to protect Intellectual Property for us all.

#wga solidarity #wga strike #sag strike #writerscommunity #pay writers #ai theft #ai #sag aftra

[13lunarstar]

Pushya

The eighth nakshatra

Degrees: from 03°20' to 16°40' of Cancer sign

The ruler of nakshatra: Saturn (sans. Shani)

Nakshatra's guna: sattwa (divine)

Pushya keywords: nourishment, milk, abundance, caretaking, devotion, protection, upbringing, traditions, healing, teaching, peace

Symbol: a cow's udder, representing nourishment and abundance

Pushya in various planets

Sun in Pushya: enhances qualities of leadership, authority, and vitality. Individuals may exhibit a strong sense of responsibility ( because of Saturn's influence) and may be drawn to positions of power or influence. They may also possess a nurturing and protective nature, especially towards their family or community.

Moon in Pushya: a very auspicious placement for the Moon. Individuals born under the Moon's influence in Pushya may be emotionally sensitive, nurturing, and compassionate. They have a deep connection to their roots and may excel in roles that involve caretaking, counselling, or supporting others.

Mars in Pushya: can amplify its assertive and energetic qualities. Individuals may be driven by a strong sense of purpose and may be determined to overcome obstacles in pursuit of their goals. They may possess leadership qualities and a desire to defend their values, and protect and nurture those they care about, especially family. Also, Mars in Pushya can signify emotional intensity and passion. Individuals with this placement may experience strong emotions and may express themselves assertively in their relationships and interactions.

Mercury in Pushya: enhances communication skills, intelligence ( including emotional), and adaptability. Individuals may excel in fields that require effective communication, such as teaching, writing, or public speaking. They may also be adept at networking and building connections within their community. Good placement for social work. Individuals may excel in academic pursuits or intellectual hobbies that stimulate their minds.

Jupiter in Pushya: enhances qualities of wisdom, spirituality, and benevolence. Individuals may possess a deep faith and may be drawn to spiritual teachings or practices. They may also be generous, compassionate, and devoted to serve as guides and mentors, offering wise counsel and guidance to those in need. Pushya Nakshatra is associated with cultural heritage and ancestral wisdom. Individuals with Jupiter in Pushya may have a deep respect for tradition and may seek to preserve cultural practices and customs. They may be involved in activities that celebrate and promote cultural diversity.

Venus in Pushya: creates a keen eye for beauty and may excel in artistic pursuits such as art, music, or design. They may build environments that are visually pleasing and inviting. Venus in Pushya indicates emotional sensitivity, vulnerability and empathy coupled with romantic idealism. These individuals are attuned to the feelings and needs of others and may excel in providing emotional support and comfort. They value intimacy and connection in their relationships and seek to create bonds based on mutual understanding and trust.

Saturn in Pushya: brings a sense of discipline, responsibility, and stability. Individuals may be diligent workers who take their duties and obligations seriously. They may also have a deep respect for tradition and may uphold traditional values in their personal and professional lives. Saturn in Pushya Nakshatra emphasizes a practical and pragmatic approach to life. These individuals are realistic and down-to-earth, preferring to focus on tangible results and achievable goals rather than lofty ideals or dreams.

Rahu in Pushya: may amplify desires for deeper and intense emotional experiences (which may lead to dependability), material success and worldly achievements. Individuals with this placement may strive to obtain status and accumulate wealth, property, or resources as a means of establishing security and stability in their lives. However, there may also be a tendency towards excess or obsession, which could lead to challenges if not kept in check.

Ketu in Pushya: emphasizes spiritual growth and detachment from worldly attachments. Individuals may be introspective, intuitive, and drawn to mystical or esoteric knowledge. Natives with Ketu in Pushya may be on a lifelong quest for self-discovery and spiritual growth, exploring different paths and philosophies in search of deeper meaning and purpose. Ketu in Pushya may indicate a release of past karma and a willingness to let go of attachments and burdens from previous lifetimes. These individuals may be liberated from the cycles of birth and death, finding peace and contentment in the present moment.

#vedic astrology #nakshatras #jyotish #pushya #pushya nakshatra #13lunarstar

[frankendykes-monster]

There is a popular quote attributed to both Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek arguing that it is “easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” It is an odd thought to process while watching Rhys Frake-Waterfield’s Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, a schlocky horror film that reimagines A. A. Milne’s loveable anthropomorphic teddy bear as a hack-and-slash movie monster. Still, it’s something that bubbles through the film’s very existence. Blood and Honey can be understood in a couple of different contexts. Most obviously, it is a transgressive horror film that uses the iconography of beloved childhood figures in a grotesque and unsettling way as a shortcut to cheap thrills. There has been a recent spate of these movies, including The Banana Splits Movie and The Mean One. Later this year, Five Nights at Freddy’s will adapt the beloved video game, riffing on the same basic idea of cute childish things turned violent. However, Blood and Honey stands apart from these contemporaries. It isn’t a pastiche like Five Nights at Freddy’s, it isn’t a licensed production like The Banana Splits Movie, and it’s not an unauthorized parody like The Mean One. It is an adaptation of A. A. Milne’s beloved children’s classic, made possible by the fact that Winnie the Pooh has entered the public domain. Nobody has to pay to use the character, and no authority has the power to veto what can be done with him. Copyright law is an interesting thing. The Copyright Act of 1790 enshrined legal protection of an author’s right to their work for “the term of fourteen years from the recording the title thereof in the clerk’s office.” However, that period of protection would be expanded over the ensuing centuries. With the Copyright Term Extension Act, arriving in 1998, that protection was extended to the life of the author plus another seven decades. Of course, the reality is that copyright doesn’t always protect the artists. It often exists to enrich corporate entities. Much of the most lucrative intellectual property on the planet is controlled by faceless companies that ruthlessly exploit the artistry of their employees and contractors. Comic book movies are a billion-dollar industry, but key creative figures have to fundraise to pay medical bills, like Bill Mantlo. Creators like Jack Kirby or Bill Finger never got to enjoy the spoils of their labor.

Indeed, these extensions to the period of copyright were largely driven by companies holding these intellectual property rights. The Copyright Term Extension Act was known in some circles as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” reflecting Disney’s proactive lobbying in favor of the extension. Incidentally, Disney paid $350 million to buy Winnie the Pooh from the A. A. Milne estate in March 2001. It is ruthless capitalism, rooted in these companies’ desires to control the public imagination. The Copyright Term Extension Act ensured that no media entered the public domain between 1998 and 2019. As much as writers like Grant Morrison might argue that superheroes are the modern equivalent to the classic Greek gods, this ignores the fact that mythology is a public resource. The classic myths were not owned by large corporations that could use the threat of legal action to pull Vera Drew’s The People’s Joker from the Toronto International Film Festival after a single screening. This makes Blood and Honey a pointed act of transgression. The film comes from writer and director Rhys Frake-Waterfield, best known as a producer of low-rent schlock like Dinosaur Hotel and Dragon Fury. Realizing that A. A. Milne’s beloved childhood fable was entering the public domain, Frake-Waterfield sensed an opportunity. With a budget of under $100,000, he set out to make a quick cash-in slasher movie. Of course, Frake-Waterfield could only draw from elements included in the earliest stories. He had to avoid the iconic material added to the mythos in the years that followed. “Only the 1926 version is in the public domain, so those were the only elements I could incorporate,” Frake-Waterfield admitted. “Other parts like Poohsticks, and Tigger, and Pooh’s red shirt — those aren’t elements I can use at the moment because they’re the copyright of Disney and that would get me in a lot of trouble.” Blood and Honey is a bad movie. It is lazy, uninspired, and boring. It has no sense of character, theme, or basic structure. It’s a lazily reskinned version of Halloween or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre from a filmmaker who spent a significant portion of the press tour passive-aggressively complaining about how Halloween Ends took “itself too seriously.” There is nothing of any merit here, nothing to hold the audience’s interest. The film’s 84-minute runtime lasts several lifetimes. That said, there is a germ of an interesting idea in the central concept, which has an adult Christopher Robin (Nikolai Leon) returning to the childhood fantasy that he abandoned to go to college. He discovers that his childhood did not take well to this abandonment. Winnie the Pooh (Craig David Dowsett), now a feral and mute beast, chains Christopher up and tortures him. He whips the adult with Eeyore’s tail. However, Winnie the Pooh cannot kill Christopher. He must possess him.

It is too much to suggest that this plot is mirrored in the story of the film’s actual protagonist and decoy final girl, Maria (Maria Taylor). Maria is taking a trip into the country with her girlfriends, recovering from a traumatic experience with a male stalker (Chris Cordell). When Maria’s friend Lara (Natasha Tosini) spots Pooh lurking around the Airbnb, she assumes that he must be Maria’s stalker. Pooh’s psychopathic sidekick, Piglet, is also played by Cordell, to underscore this connection. At times, Blood and Honey seems like it might be a clever and subversive commentary on the way in which so much modern pop culture infantilizes its audience. Christopher has tried to grow up and leave his childhood behind, even planning to marry his fiancée Mary (Paula Coiz), but his childhood won’t leave him behind. Pooh needs Christopher, his validation and his love. However, that relationship is not as innocent as it appears framed through childhood memory. Many modern adults would empathize with this idea, as their childhood nostalgia is weaponized against them by streaming services and studios. Even if one lives in a remote cabin in the woods, franchises like Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man, and X-Men: The Animated Series are inescapable. Entertainment that was once aimed at children is now aimed at the adults those children became. There is no indication that these corporations are ever going to stop. Of course, this gives Blood and Honey too much credit, suggesting that it can be read as a subversive commentary on the role that this sort of intellectual property plays in cultural stagnation. In reality, Blood and Honey is an illustration of just how pervasive this model of capitalism can be. Frake-Waterfield isn’t using Pooh to make a point about the cynical exploitation of these cultural touchstones. He is using it as a cynical exploitation of these cultural touchstones. Blood and Honey grossed nearly $5 million at the global box office, and one suspects that it performed very well on home media and streaming. There is already a sequel in the works with “five times the budget.” More than that, Frake-Waterfield has made a conscious effort to expand the brand into a shared universe built around similar properties. He will direct Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare and will produce Bambi: The Reckoning, which was sold to international distributors at Cannes this year. Frake-Waterfield doesn’t just have his eye on these sequels and spin-offs. He dreams of a bigger childhood horror shared universe. “The idea is that we’re going to try and imagine they’re all in the same world, so we can have crossovers,” he boasted. “People have been messaging saying they really want to see Bambi versus Pooh.” It’s incredibly ruthless and cynical. It is a transparent attempt to build a massive multimedia franchise from elements that the production team don’t have to pay for.

In theory, the liberation of these iconic characters from copyright should herald encourage creativity and ingenuity. It should allow for more projects like The People’s Joker or Apocalypse Pooh. There are certainly artists engaged in that sort of work. It also provides the opportunity for commentary and engagement with the modern media landscape. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is already salivating at the satirical potential of Mickey Mouse’s entry into the public domain. Blood and Honey suggests an alternative to these creative uses of works leaving corporate purview. Blood and Honey is just as cynical and ruthless in its exploitation of this intellectual property as Disney had been. Frake-Waterfield is clearly aspiring to exploit these properties in exactly the same way that Disney did, hoping to create a scale model of their production machine. It is a trickle-down shared universe, a reheat of a familiar meal constructed from pre-digested ingredients. For all the moral handwringing about how the movie “ruined people’s childhoods,” this is the real horror of Blood and Honey. It suggests the limits of creative imagination, an inability to conceive of an alternative to the model of intellectual property management that defines so much contemporary pop culture. The roots of this mode of thinking run so deep that it seems impossible to imagine any alternative. The public domain doesn’t free this intellectual property from endless exploitation, it just means somebody else gets to take a turn. If the rights to Winnie the Pooh are entering the public domain, why wouldn’t somebody use the brand recognition to make a quick and easy buck? After all, the business logic behind Blood and Honey is the same logic behind something like The Little Mermaid or Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. People recognize the brand, and that will make it easier to sell. Even this seemingly subversive and rebellious act is just a cheaper, more cynical, and less competent iteration of the larger processes that drive modern media. All things considered, the cynicism of Blood and Honey is a small price to pay for the possibility of more work like The People’s Joker. More than that, if it helps to undermine or shatter the brand loyalty that these corporations have cultivated among generations of movie-goers, it may serve some purpose. Still, it’s disheartening to watch Blood and Honey, realizing that these modes of exploitation are so deeply ingrained in pop culture that they perpetuate even in the public domain. Even as the end of copyright becomes a reality, the end of this intellectual property churn remains beyond imagination. Oh bother.

[bellysoupset]

For the mini-fic, could I ask for tight loud belly gurgles with sick Jon and Leo? (If Luke and Bell were there too would be super fun, but whatever works for the scenario, I love me some sick Jon).✨️💙 @writing-whump

Making the most out of my little weekend at the cabin scenery!

---------------------

"C'mere," Leo chuckled, grabbing the back of Jonah's sweater and tugging on it with all his force, causing the other man to let out an strangled, offended noise as he fell down on the big cushion Leo was sitting on as well.

They were all outside the cabin, sitting around the fire pit. It was a chilly night, after a full Saturday of activities and Leo was more than a little tipsy, happily pressing his lips to Jon's cheek when the other man let out a scoff and grumbled about him stretching his sweater.

"So you're going to specialize in entertainment?" Luke asked, eyebrows raised and Leo was reminded he was actually holding a conversation to begin with.

"Not entertainment," Leo yawned, downing the rest of the wine in his mug — yes, mug, much to Jonah's horror —, "intellectual property law. Everything surrounding things people have created and must be protected-"

"That's really cool," Vince praised, looking genuinely impressed, "so authors and stuff?"

"As well as brands, artists..." Leo shrugged, then let out a surprised chuckle when he felt Jonah all but collapse against his side, completely giving up on the conversation.

He looked away from their friends — Bella was sprawled on the grass, only her head resting on Luke's lap. Leo was pretty sure Wendy had fallen asleep against Vince's bicep, the poor girl was worn after having just recovered from strep and driving 4 hours on top of a hospital shift — to Jon.

Jonah looked almost as tired as Wendy, but unlike her slack, peaceful face, Jon had pained lines around his mouth.

"You alright?" Leo whispered, trailing a hand up his boyfriend's back and frowning, tuning out the others.

Jonah started to nod, but then he shook his head, sitting up straight, "I'm going to bed," he announced.

"Already?" Bella pouted, wide awake, "it's only 9, old man."

"I overdid on the wine, I'm sleepy," Jonah cleared up, then waved Leo off when he went to stand up as well, "no, stay, I'm just gonna sleep it off-" he yawned again and then walked back inside.

Leo sighed, not happy to be dismissed, but also not wanting to go in just yet either. It was a really nice night, just chilly enough for the bonfire and so there were no mosquitos, with the stars dotting the sky.

They talked for another hour or so, Leo sliding down the daybed cushion until he was practically fully lying down, talking about work — Luke was particularly interested —, about Bella's new RPG campaign-

"I really cannot wrap my head around you playing table top RPG. Like those kids from Stranger Things?" Leo frowned.

"I'm not a loser boy and it's not the 80s, so no," Bella scoffed, "I'll have you know I'm a super hot barbarian."

"Of course you are," Vince teased her lightly, "I need you to help me run a campaign with my thirteen year olds."

"Are you on some contest for coolest teacher?" Bella poked fun at him, "damn, buy the kids ice cream while you're at that-"

Leo laughed at them, turning his head towards the large cabin up the hill and frowning as he realized the room he guessed was his and Jon's still had the lights on.

"Y'all, I think I'm going inside," Leo decided and heard a chorus of Goodnight Leo as he walked away.

True to what he expected, Jonah was still awake. The lights were on and he was lying on top of the blankets, in his pajamas, an arm thrown over his face in order to block the light out.

"Sleepy, uh?" Leo asked, stumbling inside and grabbing on the doorway to steady himself. He hadn't felt just how sloshed he was while sitting down, but standing it was painfully obvious.

"I am sleepy," Jonah groaned, "but my stomach won't let me sleep."

"Aww angel, what's wrong with your tummy?" Leo cooed, closing the door and crawling on the bed, immediately grabbing the silk shirt of Jon's pjs and pushing it up to his chin.

Drunk, he didn't bother biting down a dreamy sigh at Jon's exposed midriff. Despite Leo's teasing about him abandoning gym, that wasn't exactly true. He no longer exercised every day like Leo still did and he no longer weight lifted, but he did still go in once a week, for the aerobics. On top of that, Jon had joined Bell's boxing class.

His stomach, that once had a hard six pack that was akin to Leo's, now was soft, a little squishy, and tonight it was bloated and round.

"What are yoOU DOING?!" Jonah squealed, as Leo didn't think twice before leaning in as if to kiss his belly, but instead opted for biting it, "Leo!"

"Your tummy is cute," he smiled, pressing a kiss to where he had just bit and slumping across the bed, half his body resting on Jonah's thighs and trapping him in place, "you're cute."

"You're drunk," Jonah groaned, blowing out a little queasy burp, "and it's not cute, I feel really gross."

Leo trailed his fingers up the middle of his boyfriend's belly, as if they were walking. Even bloated by the wine and soft by the lack of exercise, there was still a concave line there, marking the quadrants of his abs.

Once he almost reached Jonah's chest, Leo opened his hand flat against the other man's skin, rubbing a soft circle there, "help- Oh ow," the blonde raised his eyebrows when his touch caused a gurgle to ripple through Jon's tummy, emitting a whine.

Jon brought a fist to his mouth and burped into it, making a face at the taste, "ew."

"Let me know if I'm making it worse," Leo mumbled, looking away from his face and focusing his whole attention on his boyfriend's belly. He continued the gentle, strong circular rubs on his upper stomach, until the gurgles died down and then moved his hands down, searching for another tight spot. As soon as he touched Jon's belly button, the other man darted a hand up and cupped his mouth, letting out a wet, sickly belch.

His tummy gurgled and whined, vibrating under Leo's touch, "sounds so upset..." Leo whispered, mesmerized, then digging his thumb on Jon's side and rubbing little circles from the side towards the navel.

"Gentle, you're gonna make me puke," Jon groaned, as his belly whined again, "Leo..."

"Sorry, sorry," Leo eased up the pressure, before slightly lowered on the bed and planting an elbow on the mattress, supporting his head with his free hand. He leaned in and kissed Jon's softer under tummy, right where his pajama' pants met it. This close he could feel and hear the constant gurgling and whining coming from the sickly organ, "you poor thing-"

"Yeah, you sound very sorry about it," Jonah scoffed, but didn't push him back, "you don't think it's disgusting?"

"Your tummy?" Leo blinked owlishly at him, bewildered, "no?!"

"But it's making all sorts of gross noises..." Jonah's cheeks turned dark with a blush and Leo let out a scoff, moving again and then resting his cheek against the other man's belly, now hearing very clearly every upset gurgle.

"I think it's super cute," he clarified, "hell, I never think any part of you is gross, Jon."

"Aren't you a romantic," Jonah scoffed, but even without looking up Leo could hear the relief in his voice. He reached in without thinking, starting to pet Leo's hair, not telling him to move, "the pressure is helping, don't move."

"Okay," Leo whispered, closing his eyes and allowing the little symphony of gurgles to lull him to sleep.

#mywriting #sickfic #queasy #upset stomach #upset tummy #intox #jonah banks #i am living on 2 hrs of sleep so this is probably riddled with typos #if you see one no you didnt (i'll fix it later)

[memecucker]

It’s kinda interesting how literally the exact bill in English law that codified “passing into the public domain” for the first time was immediately hit by the publisher cartel lobbying to extend it and I mean immediately in the etymological sense as it was in the same act of parliament namely the Copyright Act of 1710. Originally works entered the public domain 14 years after being published with another 14 year extension possible if the (living) author requested it but publishers managed to get a 28 year exception granted where people had exclusive rights to publish works they had already been publishing for the time being so the industry could adjust. But then instead of adjusting they lobbied the courts to make copyright last in perpetuity and succeeded for a time before that was removed and they’ve been fighting to get back to that ideal state of fully privatizing intellectual works in perpetuity ever since

So Disney, record labels etc haven’t “corrupted” anything about intellectual property, they’re part of a tradition going back 300 years. Copyright and IP law was always rigged for the people that get wealthy off of artists and creators and to protect those publishing cartels who are already powerful from being threatened by smaller outfits that might challenge them.

To pretend otherwise or to think it could be reformed to an imagined original more ideal state where IP protects the small artists and creators from powerful business interests would be like wanting to reform casinos so that their games have odds favoring the players to win, if you did that the whole system would just collapse because it’s lost it’s original purpose of existence

[sacrificethemtothesquid]

Heads up, folks:

I got this comment on one of my fics and I wanted to let you know this is not only illegal, but very, very uncool. Fanworks are considered transformative and therefore do not constitute copyright violation. The second money is introduced, though - that's a violation that allows the holder of the intellectual property to sue.

We don't own fanworks. We have zero authors' rights. I can spend thousands of hours of work on a fic, but I will never have legal claim on it. We instead rely on the respect and decency of our community to prevent plagiarism, aka don't be a dick about things. I know we're all strapped for cash these days, but legally you cannot profit from fanwork.

If you get a comment like this, report it as spam and delete it. Don't let these assholes ruin the good thing we've got.

[image id: a comment on Ao3 from user kandlei that reads: Dear author, we sincerely invite you to publish your story. We will effectively protect authors' rights and provide one-to-one writing instruction. If you are interested in sharing your fanfics with more readers, you can contact us at author (a) fanfiction.com for more information. Looking forward to hearing from you.]

#fanfic is free is free is free #this is a fact #ao3 spam #writing

[glamurai56]

#control ai #govern ai #protect artists intellectual property #protect authors intellectual property #protect intellectual property #protect artists #protect musicians intellectual property

[honoka-marierose]

About a decade ago, Zack Snyder developed a storyline for the DC Extended Universe that involved Bruce Wayne impregnating Lois Lane.

The subplot in which Batman cuckolds Superman was poised to unfold in “Justice League,” with Batman dying in the sequel and Lois raising their spawn with Superman. Snyder’s vision for Wonder Woman was equally unorthodox, with visuals featuring a superheroine who brandished the decapitated heads of her conquered enemies like an ISIS jihadi.

Warner Bros. and DC Studios — which hold a firm grip on their intellectual property — rejected Snyder’s ideas, which were deemed “super creepy,” according to a source familiar with the back and forth. (DC declined to comment for this story. A representative for Snyder did not respond to a request for comment.) But in the next decade, artists and rival studios won’t need permission to create their own take on the characters.

A sad fact of Hollywood is that while superheroes never truly die, all copyrights do. On Jan. 1, Disney lost control of “Steamboat Willie,” and within 24 hours two horror-comedies starring Mickey Mouse were announced. The DC characters are the next major expirations looming on the horizon. Superman and Lois Lane will enter the public domain in 2034, followed by Batman in 2035, the Joker in 2036 and Wonder Woman in 2037.

Chris Sims, a comic book author and Batman expert, expects a flood of unauthorized Batman comics to hit the stands as soon as the copyright expires.

“There’s going to be 100 of them,” he says. “They’re going to have them ready to go.” Movie producers will also be able to make their own versions — much as they already do with public domain characters like Dracula and Robin Hood — though in the beginning they will have to stick to the original versions of the characters.

“You get Batman, but you don’t get Robin,” Sims says. “You get Superman, but you don’t get kryptonite.”

The initial Superman could only leap — not fly. “Those characteristics are going to fall into the public domain one by one,” says Amanda Schreyer, media and entertainment lawyer at Morse.

DC has been preparing for this for years. At a press event in 2023, CEO James Gunn noted that the next Superman film will introduce characters from “The Authority,” a comic series that launched in 1999, in part because the Superman copyright is about to expire.

Jay Kogan, DC’s deputy general counsel, laid out a strategy to protect characters that fall into the public domain in a 2001 article. Since only the older versions lose protection, he urged: “Keep ’em fresh and up-to-date.”

“By gradually changing the literary and visual characteristics of a character over time, a character owner can keep whatever the then-current image of the character is as the de facto standard in the public consciousness,” he wrote.

The company has done a good job of updating Superman, argues Steven Beer, an IP lawyer at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.

“The public’s perception is the contemporary Superman. It’s distinctive,” he says. “That gives them a lot of protection.”

Another tactic: Maintain a high level of quality control.

“The public should be conditioned to view any works from unrelated parties featuring a trademark owner’s characters as second-rate knockoffs,” Kogan wrote.

Kogan also suggested that trademarks could be used to block the use of a character’s name, image and slogan even after the copyright expires.

But trademark is not a cloak of immunity, argues Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain. “That only prevents uses that are likely to cause consumer confusion about source or sponsorship,” she says.

In other words, the characters’ names should be fair game, so long as it’s clear that the depiction is not coming from DC.

“You could still create a Superman horror movie or Batman horror movie,” says Jonathan Steinsapir, an IP attorney at KHIKS. “You just need to be careful about how you advertise it and how you use images of Superman in a branding sense.”

DC has done a careful job of tying the characters to itself by trademarking the terms “Man of Steel” and “Caped Crusader,” as well as Superman’s “S” and Batman’s logo.

“The bat symbol is a very strong mark,” Schreyer says. “That is going to limit what subsequent creators can do.”

Even so, expect the mid-2030s to see a glut of off-brand superhero content.

“People will make a run at these characters because there’s money to be made,” says Mark Waid, a comic book author and historian best known for his work on DC Comics titles like “Superman: Birthright.” “Or how about Superman versus Godzilla. It’s a gray area. But this town works on the speed of capitalism, right? That’s how we work.”

Sims believes more superhero comics will be a good thing. But the idea that there will be a Superman renaissance is oversold, he says.

“It’s gonna come down to execution,” Sims says. “There’s one company that’s used to doing it.”

Steinsapir says nothing would keep Snyder from making a non-Warners film featuring the DC troika.

“Zack Snyder could reshoot it and make his own new iteration of it,” he says. “You just need to be careful. For example, he definitely couldn’t call it ‘Justice League.’”

#dc #dc comics #detective comics #superman #batman #wonder woman #warner bros #dc studios #zack snyder #dcu #dc universe #dc batman #dc superman #dc wonder woman

[danielfuckingricciardo]

Why Anita Driver should be Stopped - An Essay(ish) Post

Hi. So I don’t often do long posts like this, you probably know me as a fic writer and shitposter, but this situation has been irking me since I first read about it and so I only felt it right to explain why.

First off, I wanna say that I understand what she’s doing (I’m going to refer to Anita as she/her throughout this though I have no clue on the author’s actual gender identity). I think she’s very intelligent, using pastiche and parody to create content tailored towards a certain specific audience.

But as someone who knows their fandom history, and has moved in fanfiction circles for over 10 years, the attention one specific book I’m not going to refer to by title because I may throw up in my mouth a little, has received has me very worried for F1 RPF writers as a whole.

RPF has always been a main stay of fanfiction culture. Though there are many ‘antis’ who think it’s wrong and inappropriate to write about real people, RPF fandoms, think One Direction, BTS etc have always been some of the biggest out there.

And I’m sure you’ve seen as popular fan works such as the ‘After’ series by Anna Todd and ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ by E.L. James have transitioned from fan work into published original novels.

Because of this, fan works are booming. Fanfiction is less of a dirty little secret now, confined to locked sites and email chains, but is something that many people know about even if they don’t consume it themselves.

And so, enter Anita Driver. Capitalising on the BookTok trend of ‘spicy’ fiction (what I would call erotica), the author has taken it upon herself to self publish a novel in that similar style but using Daniel Ricciardo not just as inspiration, but as the main protagonist.

I get what she’s trying to do, I really do. I can see that it’s parody, it’s not meant to be taken seriously, but firstly it’s illegal and secondly it really puts fanfiction communities at risk.

Part One: Defamation

Legally, you can’t take someone else’s identity and profit off of it without their explicit consent to do so. There’s a reason Harry Styles became Hardin Scott, and Edward Cullen became Christian Grey. That’s someone else’s intellectual property, or their identity. You cannot legally make a profit out of that. The subject could quite easily build a lawsuit against the author, and the author would have no grounds for defence. There’s a reason AO3 do not allow you to share fundraising links or anything else similar to that, and it’s to protect themselves and the authors against possible lawsuits.

I’d also just like to add that there’s plenty of erotic F1 inspired books out there. I haven’t read them myself but I know that the ‘Dirty Air’ series draws inspiration from current drivers on the grid, but doesn’t explicitly mention anyone real by name! Every character is the intellectual property of the author, it is original fiction that can safely make a profit.

By using Daniel Ricciardo’s image and personality, Anita Driver is putting herself at risk, in this case, not for theft of intellectual property, but of defamation. I haven’t read the book, of course I haven’t read the book, but I can easily believe that the content within could be considered to be defamatory as it may damage public perceptions of him. Now I’m no expert on law, I took a semester of media law and that’s it, but people have definitely sued for less.

In U.K. law (which I’m going off because I know the most about it) “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” (x) It could easily be said that portraying Daniel in this way would cause damage to his reputation. We know his image isn’t squeaky clean, but having this book using his name could easily lead people to believe that he was in some way associated with its production. I don’t think anyone would like their public perception to be that they actively encourage and fund the production of erotica about them.

In a lawsuit, Amazon could also be held liable for this, as their website is the main distribution platform for the book, and Anita Driver is a pseudonym and and an unknown.

“It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement.” (x) If Anita Driver remains anonymous, Amazon could easily be held liable in a court case. Because of this, it would be in their best interests to remove the book to avoid this. (I do not like Amazon, and while they would easily be able to fight the court case with their billions, it would be much easier for them to remove the book and avoid any possible cases.)

So honestly, it is easy to see why this book is a danger to the author. Now I’m not saying that Daniel would necessarily sue. I think he’d probably just laugh it off even if it does make him feel uncomfortable (which it probably does, it would me!) because he has more important things to do. But I honestly don’t know how F1 and Liberty Media might react to this, they would definitely be more likely considering Daniel’s Reputation in turn reflects their own.

Part Two: Danger to Fan Works

This leads me in nicely to part two, actually, because legal threats against fanfiction writers have been a real problem to various communities over the years. Anne Rice, creator of the ‘Interview with a Vampire’ series, had all works purged from the internet in the early 2000s, and threatened writers with legal action if they continued to post fanfiction.

Fanfiction has always been a niche. It’s a small part of the internet for those who want to put their blorbos in situations, or just to think about them fucking nasty. But fan works haven’t always been accepted. Many people still look down on fanfiction, particularly those feature OCs (original characters) or reader inserts.

Anita Driver’s book would be more at home on Wattpad than Kindle Unlimited. It is a fan work. It is written by fans, for fans, and should be kept to that specific audience (without paying for it of course, because as I said, it’s very illegal!)

A work of fanfiction being a book is nothing new, as I mentioned earlier, the ‘After’ series and ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ started out life as fanfiction. But when published, they were no longer fanfiction, they became original works of their own.

Putting fan works out in the open like that only threatens the F1 RPF community. It leaves us open, vulnerable, more so than normal. Sites like AO3 can only protect us to a certain extent, we can lock fics, sure, but that only stops those who don’t have an account from accessing our works.

If this one book is out there, who knows what may happen next. All it takes is for someone to say ‘I don’t want works featuring me published online and I will threaten a lawsuit’ and we’re back to email chains and password locked neocities webpages.

So it genuinely makes me worry.

And with the recent development of Dax Shepard sharing the book with Daniel himself, I feel that it’s all just too close. Fanfiction is never meant to be seen or read by its original subjects. Sure, they may actively seek it out if they want to, but unless they explicitly consent to it, they shouldn’t be seeing it. Daniel has had no say in the matter, it seems. It is being forced on him, which is going to look bad for the fanfiction community as a whole.

Part Three: Conclusion

Honestly, I don’t know whether I’m just being overly freaked out by this whole thing, I hope it just nicely blows over, the book disappears from people’s minds and we get to just keep our niche little side of the internet safe. But part of me is scared.

I’m scared for what may come, if the book is popular, will people try and emulate it? Will people start ripping fics from Tumblr/AO3/Wattpad to sell on Amazon to make a quick buck off the back of this? And will we have another Anne Rice type situation which kills the community completely?

I don’t know. And that’s what worries me. I hope that this whole thing blows over, that Daniel isn’t too freaked out, and that Anita Driver stops using ai image generators to make her book covers (Lance has waaay too many fingers on her most recent one. Caught you out babes x)

This is the end, for now. I suppose I’ll probably add to this if there are any more developments, and if anyone has anything to add (maybe some better law knowledge because mine is basic) please feel free!

Thanks for reading.

#f1 #formula one

[captainsophiestark]

Hey guys! Post with more info to follow, but for all my content creators struggling with the developing AI situation and violations of their work and theft of their intellectual property, this is a general notice and disclaimer explaining the US legal protections and Tumblr policy protecting our work and our intellectual property against AI:

Please be advised that all of my work is protected by copyright law as my intellectual property.  17 U.S.C. §103, and U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3rd ed. 2021) §311.  It is also protected by Tumbler’s terms of use, as set forth in its Terms of Service §6.  No one is authorized to take my work and submit it to any Artificial Intelligence treatment(s) of any kind or nature whatsoever or to otherwise use my work in violation of my copyrights.  AI works may not be copyrighted, so cannot be considered derivative works.  §313.2.  Therefore, there is no circumstance under which submission of my work to AI is allowed, and doing so is illegal and will subject you to litigation.

My mother, a lawyer and a literal superhero, researched the laws around fanfiction copyright and its use in AI after an anon informed me that they'd fed my work into chatgpt for "better endings". Their use of my work in that way was illegal, and while it seems the account that sent me the message is no longer on Tumblr, I'm going to be adding a link to this statement on all my fics because honestly, I'm done with this AI bullshit. Know that you have rights as a fandom content creator just like any other artist, and if people are still feeding work into AI without permission, feel free to use this in any way that helps you to get them to stop.

If you're not a US resident, obviously, the US copyright law won't apply to you or protect you. I don't know anything about the copyright laws of other countries, and my mom didn't include that in her research, but if you're a US-based creator then your work is protected.

Tagging a few fellow creators under the cut in case this applies to or helps them in anyway. We'll get through the AI bullshit together.

@bandshirts-andbooks @ghostofskywalker @arttheclown-coveredinblood

#anti ai #sophie speaks #fic writers #artists on tumblr #writers on tumblr

[mariacallous]

On Monday, the leadership of the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists held a members-only webinar to discuss the contract the union tentatively agreed upon last week with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. If ratified, the contract will officially end the longest labor strike in the guild’s history.

For many in the industry, artificial intelligence was one of the strike's most contentious, fear-inducing components. Over the weekend, SAG released details of its agreed AI terms, an expansive set of protections that require consent and compensation for all actors, regardless of status. With this agreement, SAG has gone substantially further than the Directors Guild of America or the Writers Guild of America, who preceded the group in coming to terms with the AMPTP. This isn’t to say that SAG succeeded where the other unions failed but that actors face more of an immediate, existential threat from machine-learning advances and other computer-generated technologies.

The SAG deal is similar to the DGA and WGA deals in that it demands protections for any instance where machine-learning tools are used to manipulate or exploit their work. All three unions have claimed their AI agreements are "historic" and "protective," but whether one agrees with that or not, these deals function as important guideposts. AI doesn't just posit a threat to writers and actors—it has ramifications for workers in all fields, creative or otherwise.

For those looking to Hollywood's labor struggles as a blueprint for how to deal with AI in their own disputes, it's important that these deals have the right protections, so I understand those who have questioned them or pushed them to be more stringent. I’m among them. But there is a point at which we are pushing for things that cannot be accomplished in this round of negotiations and may not need to be pushed for at all.

To better understand what the public generally calls AI and its perceived threat, I spent months during the strike meeting with many of the leading engineers and tech experts in machine-learning and legal scholars in both Big Tech and copyright law.

The essence of what I learned confirmed three key points: The first is that the gravest threats are not what we hear most spoken about in the news—most of the people whom machine-learning tools will negatively impact aren’t the privileged but low- and working-class laborers and marginalized and minority groups, due to the inherent biases within the technology. The second point is that the studios are as threatened by the rise and unregulated power of Big Tech as the creative workforce, something I wrote about in detail earlier in the strike here and that WIRED’s Angela Watercutter astutely expanded upon here.

Both lead to the third point, which speaks most directly to the AI deals: No ironclad legal language exists to fully protect artists (or anyone) from exploitation involving machine-learning tools.

When we hear artists talk about fighting AI on legal grounds, they’re either suing for copyright infringement or requiring tech companies to cease inputting creative works into their AI models. Neither of these approaches are effective in the current climate. Copyright law is designed to protect intellectual property holders, not creative individuals, and the majority of these infringement lawsuits are unlikely to succeed or, if they do, are unlikely to lead to enforceable new laws. This became evident when the Authors Guild failed in its copyright lawsuit against Google in 2015; and it faces similar challenges with its new suit, as outlined here.

The demand to control the ability of AI to train on artists' work betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how these models and the companies behind them function, as we can’t possibly prevent who scrapes what in an age where everything is already ingested online. It also relies on trusting tech companies to police themselves and not ingest works they have been told not to, knowing it’s nearly impossible to prove otherwise.

Tech entities like OpenAI are black boxes that offer little to no disclosure about how their datasets work, as are all the major Big Tech players. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight for greater transparency and reform copyright protections. However, that’s a long and uncertain game and requires government entities like the US Federal Trade Commission to be willing to battle the deep-pocketed lobbyists preventing meaningful legislation against their Big Tech bosses. There will be progress eventually, but certainly not in time for this labor crisis that has hurt so many.

The absence of enforceable laws that would shackle Big Tech doesn’t make these deals a toothless compromise—far from it. There is great value in a labor force firmly demanding its terms be codified in a contract. The studios can find loopholes around some of that language if they choose, as they have in the past, but they will then be in breach of their agreed contract and will face publicly shaming lawsuits by influential and beloved artists and the potential of another lengthy and costly strike.

What is historic in these Hollywood deals is the clear statement of what the creative workforce will and won't tolerate from the corporations. Standing in solidarity behind that statement carries tremendous weight, even if it isn't fully enforceable. It sends a message to other industry unions, several of which are facing upcoming contract negotiations, and to all labor movements, that workers will not tolerate being exploited and replaced by the rapid advance of Big Tech. And it should not be lost on the AMPTP that it may soon find itself making similar demands for its own survival to the Big Tech companies, who are perfectly poised to circumvent or devour the legacy studios.

Over the weekend, there were calls for SAG members to reject the contract based on its AI stipulations. I'll be voting to ratify, as I did for the DGA and WGA agreements—not because the terms are perfect or ironclad but because the deal is meaningful and effective. And there are no practical and immediate solutions that aren’t currently addressed. It’s time to get back to work.

This is not a fight that ends with the current strike; it’s early days in the Tech Era, with both painful disruption and significant benefits to come. The SAG deal, in combination with the DGA and WGA deals, is a momentous early blow in labor’s fight for a fair and equitable place in the new world.