this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
471 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

87744 readers
4507 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
471
Sony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual property (www.axios.com)
submitted 3 days ago by cantankerous_cashew@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

because it was ruled to be a transformative work, like how someone making a video essay on a book/game/movie is (sometimes) not violating copyright.

[–] antimidas@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If AI continues to be treated as transformative work, there should also be a valid case to kill licensing requirements for sampling music. After all, there you're literally using small clips of someone's music or similar to make undeniably new art.

[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

To be fair, that should have happened a long time ago. Copyright law hasn't been fit for purpose for a long time.

[–] redditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

I saw this ruling and fully disagree.

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So if I modify someone else's art and call it my own, the courts will respect this precedent and let me go?

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

if you have enough lawyers and the art ia substantially different (different inteded use) they might

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You got downvoted but this is just true lol

(Fuck AI slop though)