4 ms·

Google lost a lawsuit for including a (defamatory) URI in a list: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-653

Google lost a lawsuit for including a (defamatory) URI in a list: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 Yes, copyright is different, however you can lose trials for "promoting copyright infringement", e.g. The Pirate Bay, Gary Bowser. There's a decent shot at arguing the LAION list promotes copyright infringement ((after AI got smacked down a bit more)).

srslack 3y ago
You're assuming that using images or text to train AI is copyright infringement. The difference is also that The Pirate Bay was assisting copyright infringement of non-publicly available works. You have to purchase games, movies, software, and Pirate Bay gave you a directory of other people to commit copyright infringement with. They were assisting. Gary Bowser literally resold complete copies of copyrighted works.
brookst 3y ago
For either your Google or TPB references to make any sense, you have to be asserting that the photographer was engaged in illegal (defamatory or copyright-violating) behavior by posting on his own website, and that as the party breaking the law as well as the party being wronged, he has a claim against the list that included his own posting of his own content. It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal. It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.

4 ms·

Google lost a lawsuit for including a (defamatory) URI in a list: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65340444 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-653

by rrobukef 3y ago

srslack 3y ago
You're assuming that using images or text to train AI is copyright infringement. The difference is also that The Pirate Bay was assisting copyright infringement of non-publicly available works. You have to purchase games, movies, software, and Pirate Bay gave you a directory of other people to commit copyright infringement with. They were assisting. Gary Bowser literally resold complete copies of copyrighted works.
brookst 3y ago
For either your Google or TPB references to make any sense, you have to be asserting that the photographer was engaged in illegal (defamatory or copyright-violating) behavior by posting on his own website, and that as the party breaking the law as well as the party being wronged, he has a claim against the list that included his own posting of his own content. It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal. It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.