4 ms·

No, it doesn't matter whether a computer converted or to a JPEG or a human. The method and actor are irrelevant. The only relevant part is the result. Is the

No, it doesn't matter whether a computer converted or to a JPEG or a human. The method and actor are irrelevant. The only relevant part is the result. Is the resulting JPEG transformative?

staunton 2y ago
> The method and actor are irrelevant. That may be what you mostly care about, but it is definitely not true in deciding legal questions.
- muzani 2y ago
  I'm sure the law can care about such things, e.g. why we have homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.
  - staunton 2y ago
    That's exactly what I said?!
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I'm fairly certain that's often a deciding factor in legal questions? If your originally produced content, without ever having seen the other thing, is substantially similar to something that already exists, you are much more likely to be in trouble (in the sense that someone will take issue, not in the sense that you can be convicted) than if you copied something existing, and transformed it into something unrecognizable.
  - staunton 2y ago
    You're the second person who understood the opposite of what I said. I'm not a native so can you tell why what I said was ambiguous or contrary to my intended meaning?
- paulddraper 2y ago
  That's an absurd point of view and leads to "what color are my bytes"
  - TheDong 2y ago
    Yes. And since we're talking about a legal matter, the color of your bits matters quite a bit: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      That article makes an unrealted point. > They provide information on that site about when the Sun rises and sets and so on... but they also provide it under a disclaimer saying that this information is not suitable for use in court. If you need to know when the Sun rose or set for use in a court case, then you need an expert witness - because you don't actually just need the bits that say when the Sun rose. You need those bits to be Coloured with the Colour that allows them to be admissible in court, and the USNO doesn't provide that....It's a question of where the numbers came from. That's just saying that your bits have to be authenticated/verified to be accepted as accurate. Which makes sense and is entirely different than "your bits are illegal and your other identical bits are legal."
      - TheDong 2y ago
        > your bits are illegal and your other identical bits are legal That happens all the time though. If I rip a copy of a movie for backup purposes, that rip is legal. If I upload a torrent of it, the exact same bits on my disk are now illegal distribution of a copyrighted work. If I am the artist who owns the copyright of the work, my bits can legally be redistributed. The intent and legal status of the bits matters in a ton of cases.
kfajdsl 2y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable argument. If a human did a JPEG compression by hand, that wouldn't be fair use, would it?
- xpl 2y ago
  There are legendary Prodigy tracks reconstructions by Jim Pavloff, see: 1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI 2. "Voodoo people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    They definitely don't sound the same, very similar yes but far from the same. Besides was it proven in court or otherwise by some legal entity that these songs aren't considered copyright violations? Just because it has not been legislated doesn't prove it isn't copyright violation. Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    In Prodigy's defense, the samples were very creatively transformed so that the final result does not resemble the originals. It is more like cutting a small patches from paintings to make a new painting (rather than drawing a similar painting), and it is not what ML model do today.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    That is not how copyright works. Music in the US and many similar legal systems has a compulsory license provision that allows for anyone to produce and distribute covers of music as long as all licensing requirements are met. With the long history of covers in music, how much enforcement there is around the meeting the licensing requirements bit varies pretty wildly. If you are not complying with the licensing terms, however, and the rights holder comes after you, no amount of having copied the song by hand will protect you from copyright claims. Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes. Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.
stubish 2y ago
It would be the same as taking a photograph of a copyrighted work. You own the copyright of the photograph. But you cannot sell it without permission, or you violate the copyright of the original rights holder. Or maybe it would be the same as photocopying a book, where laws restrict the proportion of the work that can be reproduced without permission. Or maybe it will be its own thing, where courts and government decide existing laws are insufficient and we need new laws.

No, it doesn't matter whether a computer converted or to a JPEG or a human. The method and actor are irrelevant. The only relevant part is the result. Is the resulting JPEG transformative?

staunton 2y ago

> The method and actor are irrelevant. That may be what you mostly care about, but it is definitely not true in deciding legal questions.

muzani 2y ago
I'm sure the law can care about such things, e.g. why we have homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.
- staunton 2y ago
  That's exactly what I said?!
Aeolun 2y ago
I'm fairly certain that's often a deciding factor in legal questions? If your originally produced content, without ever having seen the other thing, is substantially similar to something that already exists, you are much more likely to be in trouble (in the sense that someone will take issue, not in the sense that you can be convicted) than if you copied something existing, and transformed it into something unrecognizable.
- staunton 2y ago
  You're the second person who understood the opposite of what I said. I'm not a native so can you tell why what I said was ambiguous or contrary to my intended meaning?
paulddraper 2y ago
That's an absurd point of view and leads to "what color are my bytes"
- TheDong 2y ago
  Yes. And since we're talking about a legal matter, the color of your bits matters quite a bit: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    That article makes an unrealted point. > They provide information on that site about when the Sun rises and sets and so on... but they also provide it under a disclaimer saying that this information is not suitable for use in court. If you need to know when the Sun rose or set for use in a court case, then you need an expert witness - because you don't actually just need the bits that say when the Sun rose. You need those bits to be Coloured with the Colour that allows them to be admissible in court, and the USNO doesn't provide that....It's a question of where the numbers came from. That's just saying that your bits have to be authenticated/verified to be accepted as accurate. Which makes sense and is entirely different than "your bits are illegal and your other identical bits are legal."
    - TheDong 2y ago
      > your bits are illegal and your other identical bits are legal That happens all the time though. If I rip a copy of a movie for backup purposes, that rip is legal. If I upload a torrent of it, the exact same bits on my disk are now illegal distribution of a copyrighted work. If I am the artist who owns the copyright of the work, my bits can legally be redistributed. The intent and legal status of the bits matters in a ton of cases.

kfajdsl 2y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable argument. If a human did a JPEG compression by hand, that wouldn't be fair use, would it?

xpl 2y ago
There are legendary Prodigy tracks reconstructions by Jim Pavloff, see: 1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI 2. "Voodoo people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!
- rowanG077 2y ago
  They definitely don't sound the same, very similar yes but far from the same. Besides was it proven in court or otherwise by some legal entity that these songs aren't considered copyright violations? Just because it has not been legislated doesn't prove it isn't copyright violation. Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.
- codedokode 2y ago
  In Prodigy's defense, the samples were very creatively transformed so that the final result does not resemble the originals. It is more like cutting a small patches from paintings to make a new painting (rather than drawing a similar painting), and it is not what ML model do today.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cthalupa 2y ago
  That is not how copyright works. Music in the US and many similar legal systems has a compulsory license provision that allows for anyone to produce and distribute covers of music as long as all licensing requirements are met. With the long history of covers in music, how much enforcement there is around the meeting the licensing requirements bit varies pretty wildly. If you are not complying with the licensing terms, however, and the rights holder comes after you, no amount of having copied the song by hand will protect you from copyright claims. Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes. Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.

stubish 2y ago

It would be the same as taking a photograph of a copyrighted work. You own the copyright of the photograph. But you cannot sell it without permission, or you violate the copyright of the original rights holder. Or maybe it would be the same as photocopying a book, where laws restrict the proportion of the work that can be reproduced without permission. Or maybe it will be its own thing, where courts and government decide existing laws are insufficient and we need new laws.