It used to use Google search results but they switched to Bing. It is worse than Google.

That’d be news to me and an ad hoc comparison I just did shows results much closer to Google than Bing with results usually just locally having switched places while on Bing it’s an entirely different order.

They do(did?) use Bing for mobile search results because daddy Google forced them to not be competitive on the platform they’re most interested in.

How could you save a png then?

A PNG of what? Copyrighted material? Depending on what you want to do with it (fair use, private copies in some places) or whether you have a license and perhaps a select few other factors, you would not be allowed to download a PNG of copyrighted material.

where you can absolutely copy a file without facing any legal repercussions for doing so.

The law and its enforcement are two separate topics. I don’t really care to discuss the latter.

Its also not illegal for humans to learn from the art of someone else and then create similar art.

Depends on how similar it is. If the work the human does to the original is transformative in some way, that falls under fair use and therefore legal. If they just apply some instagram filter or something, that would likely not be considered transformative and distribution would not be legal without permission of the copyright holder.

This is the crux in all of this imitative AI art discussion. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work and (closely related) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

Either through profiting from it or by posting that content online.

Note that profit has no influence in any of this except for making the infringing party more noticeable to law enforcement. The law itself does not care whether you make a profit out of a copyright infringement or not.

You think tracing for educational use which is then never distributed such that it could not have a negative impact on market value is infringement?

That’s not what I think, that’s what the law says.

I said what I think in the second paragraph. Sorry if I wasn’t being extra clear on that.

What the generative AI field needs moving forward is a copyright discriminator that identifies infringing production of new images.

Good luck with that.

But I’ll be surprised if cases claiming infringement on training in and of itself end up successful under current laws.

Depends. If the imitative AI imitates its source material too closely, that could absolutely be laid out as a distribution of copyrighted material.
Think about it like this: If I distributed a tarball of copyrighted material, that would be infringement, eventhough you’d need tar to unpack it. Whether you need a transformer or tar to access the material should make no difference in my layman interpretation.

personal use exists

That would be news to me. Could you give a source for that? Because it’d mean I would be allowed to copy movies, music etc. for my “personal use” and also give them away because I’m not seeking profit, right?

Copyright extends everywhere, no matter what use. There are certain specific limits such as licenses, fair use and private copies but outside of those, no, you may not make a copy and yes, even loading a file into memory counts as “making a copy”.

If you learn to draw by tracing Mickey Mouse, but then professionally draw original works, you haven’t infringed copyright.

Tracing Mickey is already copyright infringement. It’s insane but that’s how it works.

I think copyright is a weird idea in this day and age where you’re almost always standing on the shoulders of giants too but that doesn’t make it go away. Best we can do is hack it (copyleft).

copying style (not protected)

Not copyrightable but I’m not sure whether a style could be trademarked instead.

using for training (not infringing)

Whether that’s infringing or not is hotly debated topic. Key point here is whether training falls under fair use. If it doesn’t, training on copyrighted material without a license would be infringing under most jurisdictions.

in the US there is no federal protection around IP rights for voices and case law to the opposite.

Because US == world. I’d love to leave this implication behind on Reddit.

Um, no. Copyright exists and it applies to everything that is copyrightable. It doesn’t go away when you slap AI onto your imitative ML model.

Custom ROMs are a thing of course. I use them too. Custom ROMs are, again, the exception rather than the norm however; most people use the stock ROMs and that’s what I was referencing.

I am not sure which second paragraph you’re referencing as your original comment only contains one.

I homebrew the ROM on my personal phone and I can tell you from first hand experience that you need the vendor dirs extracted from the OEM ROM. You can read up on that on the wiki pages for building any device ROM.

You can also come to that conclusion the other way around: How else would you (or LOS maintainers) get your hands on proprietary blobs full of secret sauce that vendors sometimes even try to actively block access to?

The vendor blobs in custom ROMs come from the stock vendor ROM. When the vendor stops publishing their stock ROM, the custom ROM’s will also stop coming. In some cases some BLOBs can be taken from similar devices that might be supported a bit longer but I believe this is quite rare.

The ROM itself still gets updates through the AOSP but vendor BLOBs stay where they are and open source devs can do little to nothing about that.

For the first year or two, that’s common. Getting feature updates for anything even approaching >5 years is near unthinkable for Android devices however. You only get that with custom ROMs and even there it’s only half of the story as they can’t provide security updates for vendor blobs which is kind of a big yikes.

The iPhone 8 will get cut off the newest feature updates in the upcoming iOS 17; 6 years after launch. Security updates will likely be available for years to come. For comparison, my OnePlus 5 from 2017 (1 year younger) received its last update (any update whatsoever) in 2020 (3 years ago).

With an Android device, you’d be lucky to get security patches in any regularity at all, much less >3 years after release. That only happens with a couple few vendors who actually care such as Nokia and maybe Google (to a degree).

I don’t see how that point is relevant as that claim was never made.

The claim was that Android phones usually barely get updates which maps to my experience. Updates more than one or two years after the release of a device is the exception, not the norm.

Not sure why this is downvoted so much. These are very valid points.

I’m agnostic, so obviously my view on that is that we simply don’t know.

Keep them as they are. I don’t think we’ve ever had this position seriously abused and it’s a decent last line of defense ifwhen the brown shit hits the fan again.

Obviously they can’t prevent the public hurting itself again in the long term but they can however at least mitigate that happening to some degree for a little while. That can be enough to smooth over some short-term crisis and might move people to realise their situation a bit better because it’d be a highly, highly exceptional thing for them to step in.

(For those not in the know: Next to being the representative for the state (does rememberance speeches, shakes hands, etc.), the German president handles some “administrative” stuff in the government without much say and they have the power to effectively stop the legislative until their term is over by refusing to sign new bills.
The latter has never occured and single bills have only been “vetoed” only 9 times in total. Mostly because of formal issues such as the bill not actually having been approved by the Bundesrat or bills that are obviously in conflict with the Grundgesetz and would get overturned by the judicative immediately.)

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator