4 ms·
Why did the article exclusively highlight offensive examples then? Why not just "Facebook's AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse"? Why did they show that it ca
by hbn 3y ago
Why did the article exclusively highlight offensive examples then? Why not just "Facebook's AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse"? Why did they show that it can generate child soldiers? That's not infringing on IP.
- LordDragonfang 3y agoBecause it's specifically the combination that's toxic to Meta. "Mickey Mouse stickers" gets you a standard C&D. "Disney Characters doing things that Disney perceives as damaging to their family friendly™ brand" gets you a rabid lawyer personally handing you the C&D and instructing you to fix it now. I.E. not only is it offensive, it's offensive in a legally actionable way. Which I suppose is the opposite of my earlier emphasis, but different context.
- dagmx 3y agoOkay? So people here should have the ability to not look at things at purely a surface level. But regardless, the act of trademarked character doing something that damages the brands image is definitely a lot worse than just infringement alone.
- hbn 3y agoThe comment I was replying to was specifically saying that people are misunderstanding the article because they're misinterpreting the headline. Are we talking about what the article should have been about or what it's actually about? Because it's actually about the offensive angle.