No, he’s not.
Among things he is is someone who proved that Wera is not the worst MP Bath could have – some feat.
Among the things he’s not is the younger son of a Duke. He is Don, Lord Foster.
No, he’s not.
Among things he is is someone who proved that Wera is not the worst MP Bath could have – some feat.
Among the things he’s not is the younger son of a Duke. He is Don, Lord Foster.
It’s all jolly complicated. I’ve recently take on a client who is a baronet (let’s called him John Smith) who is then known as Sir John Smith Bt. Not because he has been knighted as well, but because ‘Sir’ comes automatically with being a baronet. It’s an hereditary honour but he’s not a peer so he’s a commoner.
His wife (Jane Smith) is known as Lady Smith.
If he dies, the title passes to his son. If his son is unmarried, the widow continues to be Lady Smith. However, if his son is married, the son’s wife becomes Lady Smith and the widow is thereafter known as Jane, Lady Smith to differentiate her from the son’s wife.
Who thinks up this stuff??!!
…The Aristocrats.
I like these lines, though:
‘These proposals would mean artists having to opt out to proactively express their belief their work should not be exploited – a bit similar to having to stick “do not steal” labels on all your worldly goods to stop burglars.’
‘This is legally and operationally difficult to deliver in practice. In fact, the creative industries minister himself acknowledged that there are no successful examples of an opt-out regime anywhere in the world. So why would it work here?’
He’s right, no matter how much of a twat he may be on other ways.
“Who thinks up this stuff??!!”
Probably Pope Thingummy the Horrid. I infer that from Steve’s cunning denial-in-anticipation.
Norman:
If you publish anything, it’s copyright to you unless you specifically say it’s public domain. Sounds like opt-out to me.
The fuss is mostly because it’s a machine doing it. These artists are making things publicly available. Do they sue other people studying their works and making more works “in the style of”?
Sometimes, but it’s rare – probably because there’s generally no money in it. You see it when there’s a hit song or something, and then people listen closely to it to see if there’s too much influence.
There’s potentially lots of money in suing an AI company.
M, The Berne Convention says that your copyright work is your property without formality. The USA is a belated member of Berne (and TRIPS) but in practice if you’re to enforce your IP in the USA you must have previously registered it with the US Copyright Office. Easy for small numbers of high-value works like feature films; relatively expensive and difficult with large numbers of low-value works like photographs.
The problems come with exceptions to copyright. In the USA’s Common Law system there’s a concept of “fair use”, and its scope has been both defined and expanded by legal precedent. In Civil Law systems exceptions are explicit and exhaustive in legislation. All must comply with the Berne/TRIPS “Three Step Test”:
It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test
This is inconvenient for companies and academia wanting to make massive, indiscriminate, unimpeded and cost-free use of copyright works for the purposes of “research” for their worthless academic papers; selling accompanying ads on page views; data mining; AI, training; etc. They all lobby for redefinitions of their use so that they fall within the Three Step Test.
Hence Extended Collective Licensing schemes in operation now in many jurisdictions, despite the fact that digital and metadata make it possible easily to identify rights holders and therefore create a viable market out of what were previously “orphan works”. Attempting to force creators to opt out of AI training is yet another iteration of this.
I have some specialist knowledge and experience in this area.
@Norman
However, copyright is not an total right, was never intended to be , and is not considered to be by most people. For example, if someone with no knowledge of economics were to read the articles on this site going back a few years, and as a result develop an understanding of principles of economics, they could then write an article on economics without infringing copyright. Copyright protects the exact words used and a sufficient deviation from that is not covered. In some cases even a small number of exact words words would not be covered. For example, I doubt that a demand for payment, or cease-and-desist, would work for “Jobs are a cost, not a benefit” even though it’s an exact form of words to express an idea.
Some AI training is the equivalent to taking a subscription to a foreign newspaper and reading it with a dictionary to learn the language. Even if that’s the sole source of the language you have used, when you subsequently speak in that language you owe (nor should you owe) nothing to the newspaper as it rights are only over the actual articles in it. Speaking a language is too far removed from reading articles used to learn the language to be “reproduction”.
The rule should be interpreted equally for AI and people: if a person would be entitled to use the material in a certain way, then that person is also entitled to use the material in the same way to train their AI.
“I doubt that a demand for payment, or cease-and-desist, would work for “Jobs are a cost, not a benefit” even though it’s an exact form of words to express an idea.”
Phew.
Because I’m pretty certain it’s not original to me.
If ii is, well, well done me, but don’t think it is….