But there are absolutely rules on whether Google -- or anything else -- can use that search index to create a product that competes with the original content creators.
Google indexing of copyrighted works was considered "fair use" only because they only offered a few preview pages associated with each work. Google's web page excerpts and image thumbnails are widely believed to pass fair use under the same concept.
Now, let's say Google wants to integrate the content of multiple copyrighted works into an AI, and then give away or sell access to that AI which can spit out the content (paraphrased, in some capacity) of any copyrighted work it's ever seen. You'll even be able to ask it questions, like "What did Jeff Guin say about David Koresh's religious beliefs in his 2023 book, Waco?" and in all likelihood it will cough up a summary of Mr. Guinn's uniquely discovered research and journalism.
I don't think the legal questions there are settled at all.
Always fascinated by the choices made when you have to use a picture to represent something abstract. Not sure why I found this one so funny out of context.
(it's from my health insurance)
Welcome aboard #nautical.social, the digital haven for everyone who feels the call of the open water. From weekend paddle-boarders, novice #boaters, liveaboards, seasoned #sailors, to old seafaring legends, we've dropped anchor here for you! This is your safe harbor in a much larger #fediverse.
I highly recommend this album: https://music.scenesat.com/album/the-sound-of-scenesat-volume-7
And the 6 volumes preceding it also.
Also, listen to SceneSat Radio, it's great.
VANTARADIO is now live!!!!! :VantaCat: 📻 🎶
tune into the recently-resurrected fediverse's favorite pirate radio station today!!!!!!!!!! 🏴☠️ 🎵 🔊
(be sure to use http and NOT https)
i usually do this for a great many hours so even if this was posted a while ago i'll probably still be live!!!
Demoscene Report August 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V24uWkchbfg&list=PLjxyPjW-DeNUA9Xl2fh3vx_c1zp_AxSHT&ab_channel=psenough
The Netflix Depp v. Heard documentary is hilarious at face value. Faced with the writer strike, they just threw together a clip show based on a trial that everyone stopped caring about a season ago.
I watched the first episode just to see how bad it was. Not a single line of original dialog. Just a bunch of trial footage, news clips, and youtube highlights glued together.
Honestly, this does so much brand damage to them as documentary makers it can't be worth it.
Here's my first pass at a logo for Calculated Geometry, Inc., a fictional computer animation studio founded in 1983 by Edgar Suarez and Gwendolyn Harvey, . Also known as CGI (or sometimes CalGeo), they lacked early investors, and cobbled together what they could with secondhand equipment bought from universities and other animation studios.
This is the Vranas instance.