3 ms·

You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for s

You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright "The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable), or that all DeviantArt users’ Output Images rely upon (theoretically) copyrighted Training Images, and therefore all Output images are derivative images" This displays either ignorance as to how artists work and the extent to which they are involved or can be involved in the legal copyright system, or reflects incoherence around the copyright system. In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use That is now a new precedent that negatively impacts individual artists who have no power in the market, and protects giant corporate interests which have tons of power in the market

marcinzm 3y ago
> In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use No, this has always been the case. The judge ruled nothing new. You cannot sue someone for copyright unless you first register the copyright. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-property/infringement-of-copyright/#:~:text=All%20lawsuits%20for%20infringement%20of,or%20business%20violating%20your%20copyright https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-p....
- Zanni 3y ago
  You're arguing something slightly different. The artist has copyright as soon as the work is published, whether they register it or not. You can't sue unless you've registered. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/
jcranmer 3y ago
17 USC §411 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411): > Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [NB: 106A(a) is right of attribution]. It's the law, as enacted by Congress (even though it is probably a violation of the TRIPS Agreement, an international treaty signed by the US). But note there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material, although the work has to be registered before infringement if you want statutory damages (the big $$$$) instead of just actual damages.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Exactly what I was baiting for and you took it: "there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material" Your point is exactly what people in power want. IT IS CODIFIED IN LAW that unless you go through a kafkaesque process, your work can be reused and you get no compensation for it. That is precisely the OPPOSITE of "just" and the law was written by capitalists for capitalists. Just look at the original precedent case: https://casetext.com/case/vacheron-constantin-le-coultre-watches-v-benrus-watch https://casetext.com/case/vacheron-constantin-le-coultre-wat... "two successive applications for a certificate of registration were refused by the Register of Copyrights upon the ground that the subject matter was not a work of art within the requirements of the Act" Perfect - so we set up a kafkaesque process that is opaque and up to a handful of unelected elite to make rulings on art (oh please) and if you don't do this then it's Legal and therefore right. Diogenes remains dissapointed
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    So why are you angry at the judge and not Congress? (Also, fwiw, your copyright registration being denied is sufficient to bring action. You just now have to plead why you have copyright despite the US Copyright Office disagreeing.)
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
> When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.” from https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=Do%20I%20have%20to%20register,moment%20the%20work%20is%20created https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=.... I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). I wonder how much it would cost in copyright fees to register all of LAION.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). Well, here's the actual text from the decision: > Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3 > In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. > Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered. TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright The judge didn't say that (for one thing, copyrights aren't handled by the Patent and Trademark Office.) What he did say is a bit bizarre. because copyrightable works are cooyrighted automatically when set in fixed (including digital) form. So, if it existed to be trained on and was cooyrightable, it was cooyrighted. The judge may have been using sloppy language to refer to registration, which legally must be done before pursuing most copyright claims in court. (This isn't about being cooyrighted, and registration can happen after alleged infringement without invalidating the claim, but it doesn have to happen before filing a lawsuit; it is a procedural reauirement that is black and white in the law.)

marcinzm 3y ago

> In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use No, this has always been the case. The judge ruled nothing new. You cannot sue someone for copyright unless you first register the copyright. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-property/infringement-of-copyright/#:~:text=All%20lawsuits%20for%20infringement%20of,or%20business%20violating%20your%20copyright https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-p....

Zanni 3y ago
You're arguing something slightly different. The artist has copyright as soon as the work is published, whether they register it or not. You can't sue unless you've registered. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/

jcranmer 3y ago

17 USC §411 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411): > Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [NB: 106A(a) is right of attribution]. It's the law, as enacted by Congress (even though it is probably a violation of the TRIPS Agreement, an international treaty signed by the US). But note there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material, although the work has to be registered before infringement if you want statutory damages (the big $$$$) instead of just actual damages.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Exactly what I was baiting for and you took it: "there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material" Your point is exactly what people in power want. IT IS CODIFIED IN LAW that unless you go through a kafkaesque process, your work can be reused and you get no compensation for it. That is precisely the OPPOSITE of "just" and the law was written by capitalists for capitalists. Just look at the original precedent case: https://casetext.com/case/vacheron-constantin-le-coultre-watches-v-benrus-watch https://casetext.com/case/vacheron-constantin-le-coultre-wat... "two successive applications for a certificate of registration were refused by the Register of Copyrights upon the ground that the subject matter was not a work of art within the requirements of the Act" Perfect - so we set up a kafkaesque process that is opaque and up to a handful of unelected elite to make rulings on art (oh please) and if you don't do this then it's Legal and therefore right. Diogenes remains dissapointed
- jcranmer 3y ago
  So why are you angry at the judge and not Congress? (Also, fwiw, your copyright registration being denied is sufficient to bring action. You just now have to plead why you have copyright despite the US Copyright Office disagreeing.)

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

> When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.” from https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=Do%20I%20have%20to%20register,moment%20the%20work%20is%20created https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=.... I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). I wonder how much it would cost in copyright fees to register all of LAION.

jcranmer 3y ago
> I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). Well, here's the actual text from the decision: > Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3 > In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. > Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered. TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright The judge didn't say that (for one thing, copyrights aren't handled by the Patent and Trademark Office.) What he did say is a bit bizarre. because copyrightable works are cooyrighted automatically when set in fixed (including digital) form. So, if it existed to be trained on and was cooyrightable, it was cooyrighted. The judge may have been using sloppy language to refer to registration, which legally must be done before pursuing most copyright claims in court. (This isn't about being cooyrighted, and registration can happen after alleged infringement without invalidating the claim, but it doesn have to happen before filing a lawsuit; it is a procedural reauirement that is black and white in the law.)