okay I did in fact open the page to appeal the removal but it IS asking me to consent to the jurisdiction of the federal district court and supply personal identity info so. not a battle I feel like fighting

On Palworld using AI art;

short answer, I can find zero evidence of this (but feel free to prove me wrong) but it's not impossible

long answer, this seems to be a mix of misunderstanding and their past history. (read more so I don't clog feeds with my wall of text)

The CEO of PocketPair has made posts on Twitter saying how impressed he is with AI art generation, that is true, but the post most people point at he credits in the same thread. It was made by a Buzzfeed employee that was using ruDall-E (minimaxir on twitter) he created a series of fakemon and the CEO commented how it could fool him.

The company of PocketPair is also pro-AI use, and they most certainly have made a game using AI art before, but it does not appear Palworld is one of them. I feel like explaining the game adds context and then you can come to your own conclusions as to if it's ethical use or not. AI: Art Imposter is a game based around AI art generation, each player is given a theme and must give the built-in image generator a prompt that matches that theme, however one of you is an imposter who does not know the theme and must feed the generator a prompt either vauge enough or by pure luck matches the theme and try not to get voted out. This game is similar to the popular game Suck Up! which involves the use of an AI text generator, to the point where the website makes it extremely clear you are purchasing cryptocurrency to make the game work. My only gripe is we do not know where the art is coming from, it could be from the public domain or their own office sure, or it could be stolen which is honestly more likely.

The CEO did state once in 2022 "In about 30 years, the general public’s perception of copyright may have changed considerably.” in reference to AI art generation. I think it's entirely possible due to his past statements AI was used in the design process, not the direct assets. This is again a subject of heavy debate and a matter of opinion regarding ethics, as to whether or not you consider inspiration from AI art to also be a form of stealing. If you've ever "stole" or "fixed" AI art adopts this process is more than likely what was done here. I think this is what he meant in regards to copyright, as the original question was if you feed the same image into a generator enough times is it then considered an original idea, I could be wrong however.

I get the game with my game pass subscription either way, but I understand the need to have this sort of information before making a purchase. I personally do not like the use of AI and tried to remain as neutral as I could by providing other similar examples even if I do not personally agree with them, but I'm sure my bias will shine somewhere. As an artist AI is definitely something I worry about but I can see how it can be used as a proper tool once more laws are put into place regarding proper credit and payment to the artists used.

So I've seen this post going around that features quotes from various authors who dislike fanfiction, or think fanfiction is illegal. Of course, this being fandom, the post is intended to mock these authors.

Here's my controversial opinion: I think an author has every right to dislike fanfiction.

I'm not saying I agree with them. It'd be pretty hypocritical of me if I did. I've written fanfiction, I love reading fanfiction. I don't know enough about copyright law to really debate the legality of it. (And honestly, I don't think most of the people pointing and laughing at that post do either.) I'll leave that up to AO3's legal department, with the caveat that even lawyers who are experts in their fields don't always agree on the exact interpretation of a law.

I think it's an asshole move to threaten a lawsuit, but I haven't actually heard of anyone doing that since Anne Rice.

I agree, sometimes it's funny when give some of these authors a closer look. Diana Gabaldon, rather infamously, was inspired by Jamie from Doctor Who, to the point where her hero shares the name of the character and the actor. One of my personal favorite authors, P. N. Elrod, dislikes fanfiction, though she's written for licensed properties, and even published a novel where Quincy Morris ended up a vampire!

Personally, I think they're a bit hypocritical. But obviously, to THEM, there's a distinction. Gabaldon might have been inspired to create her hero, but she's not really writing Doctor Who. The characters and plots are original. Elrod's licensed work is contracted, legally approved and done with permission OR involve works that are now in Public Domain. It clearly makes a difference to them, whether or not we agree.

I'm not saying "Don't write fanfic.". I'm not even saying "don't write fanfic when the authors don't like it." I personally believe that fanfiction is a product by and for fans and the original creators ought to butt out.

But I think they have the right to feel the way they do. For whatever reason. Even if they're being silly about it.

(I think we've all, at times, stumbled on a fic or meta that's so off base that it's almost, or actually offensive. Imagine how much more aggravating it would be if you were the one who originally made it!)

Oh and it's really silly when folk try to pretend that the only authors who hate fanfic are the bad ones, while the good ones all appreciate it. It's a variation on that same stupid idea that only good people have talent, while the bad people all suck. The world would be much easier if the only people with talent were the people who agreed with us, and had the same morals, ethics, and general tastes that we have. But the world doesn't work that way.

Heck, if the author didn't have SOME talent, we wouldn't want to be writing fic in their universe in the first place. (Discounting spite fics, but those are relatively few in the grand scheme of things.)

Fanfic, hell fandom, is the business of fans for fans. The authors shouldn't be involved, except possibly as an anonymous spectator pointing and laughing. Or cringing and crying. Depending on the fandom.

If you leave the authors alone, you probably won't ever have to even know their opinion about fanfic anyway.

And we should leave the question of legality up to the lawyers that know what they're talking about.

Everyone's celebrating the steamboat mouse coming into public domain and yes I definitely understand it and think it's a good thing to celebrate. I'm not gonna take that away from anyone. But my brain instead, for some reason, is fixated on the hatred I feel over how extensively D1nsey has abused legal powers to keep any forms of the mouse out of the public domain for as long as they could. Yes, the original version of the mouse is now in the public domain. But did you know that more recent versions will never enter the public domain as long as D1sney is a company? This is because they have made this version of the mouse their trademark as a "cooperate mascot" and "brand identifier", and you can renew your trademark as many times as you want.

Extra rambles below the cut talking about all the bs this company has done to keep even the original version of the mouse out of the public domain

Do people know that the company lobbied to change the copyright laws TWICE to extend his arrival into the public domain? Works were initially only supposed to be protected for 56 years after publication, as of the most recent amendment to copyright law at the time, from 1909. Meaning it should've entered public domain in 1984. But they changed the laws! To be then extended until... 2003. For a total of 75 years of protection. And then, of course, they lobbied AGAIN in 1998 to get the laws changed AGAIN to extend it to now a total of 95 years after publication. (Fun fact, the 1998 act, even back in the day, was jokingly called "The M1ckey M0use Protection Act" to make fun of it.)

The initial lobbying at least made Some sense on strictly a surface level. I can see why they made a case for copyright law being outdated, as prior to them first getting a new copyright law act passed (1976), that obviously means it hadn't been updated for 67 years. Especially notable considering how much had changed in those years. The one from 1909 was made with books in mind. I don't agree with it, but as I said, on a very high surface level, I can understand it.

But their true motives, keeping the mouse from entering the public domain, were very clear. So I feel this credit I could give them is null. Especially considering, as I already said, they would lobby again just 22 years later to extend it even further, because 75 years apparently wasn't enough for them. The only TRUE credit I can give them is that they weren't the only company pushing for this, they were just the main ones. But that is very very minimal credit at best.

Overall I think copyright is a stupid concept, other than the basic idea of preventing other people from saying they own the material or character. And I say this as an artist. But regardless of any opinions on copyright law, it's very clear that D1sney is acting purely on a capitalistic urge and fear.

hi, pragerU anon here. i was indeed not using capitalism as a snarl word but as the source that drives the current development in art.

a big example for movies would be the fact that all sequels/live action remakes are created for marketability/brand recognition but also very much copyright renewal! which is very capitalist in structure and motivation imo, creating media with maximum mass appeal for maximum profit etc. aaaaaaand in a different system this might not be the case at all, in fact, we might have all the current franchises be part of the public domain maybe, or maybe they would never have had a copyright in the first place! :)

like yeah, disney having a film monopoly is bad, but its very much capitalism that is the reason WHY disney has a film monopoly in the first place! and why it consolidates all its characters in its crossover multiverses (profit incentive), and why it makes a billion bland brainrotting superhero movies (profit incentive), and why it gives "representation" but not so much that it could conceivably upset any homophobe/transphobe (profit incentive) and why it makes movies that kinda "critique capitalism" but not to the point where anyone would want to do anything about it, and why it makes perfectly timed mediocre remakes for copyright renewals (copyright...incentive?).

thus, all creative choices and all content/story choices for any given film are lovingly permeated by the tendrils of the capitalist beast <3 and we know it's not the first time either! vertical integration in the film industry was considered a large enough problem before, to the point where the United Stated actually sued Paramount for example. not sure how common knowledge that is? nowadays the monopolies are horizontally integrated, so it's "fine" i guess....

anyway sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to clarify i didn't just jumble random buzzwords together in the first ask, the words do have purpose ^^

Sure, I get you.

There is one misconception here, (I am not a lawyer, but) under US law Disney doesn't need to renew a lot of their copyrights, copyrighted works in the US created after 1978 automatically get their full term. For earlier works, there's no requirement that they be published.

The Berne Convention, which the vast, vast majority of countries in the world are signatories to, means that, essentially, Disney's works receive the same protection in all the nations that they would in the US, so they don't have to renew in foreign countries either.

You are likely thinking of Trademarks, which do in fact expire if not consistently used.

The extreme length of copyright in the US (life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.) is absolutely rooted in economic motives.

It took a while for businesses to really understand this, but building loyalty to an IP is very good for business. If people are big fans of Steven Spielberg movies, well, that gives Spielberg leverage to extract things from Disney or threaten to move somewhere else. If people are big fans of dinosaur movies, any studio can make those. But if people are big fans of Jurassic Park movies, Disney has a monopoly on those and nobody can pry that away from them until around 2088 at which point much of its vitality and relevance will have disappeared anyway.

So Disney has an economic incentive to treat Jurassic Park as a brand, and artistic decisions are going to be made with long-term brand management in mind.

It's not just profit motive: It's how the owners of an artwork make money off of it in a specific capitalist milieu with the presence of extraordinarily long copyright duration, easily distributed mass media and a high tolerance for monopoly.

But the fact that we live in a capitalist society is not at all incidental to the decisions being made here.

Totally not mark on YouTube it's literally a huge story on the platform and all creators are supporting him because of the false claims.

It's crazy how you can have the confidence to talk about and be so wrong on something you know nothing about.

sorry i have a life and don't keep up with random anime people. anyways lets take a look

just looking here we've got five copyrighted shows he's reviewing. if these are still up he is likely not including enough footage for there to be a problem

nothing is fair use unless you have permission btw and there is no way he's reviewing any anime in the public domain

look there's this other guy i watch Mike's Mic. He reacts to content all the time but in heavily edited small clippets or just shows pictures and describes. when he did a Pretty Little Liars break down he didn't show like any footage because he's have gotten sniped for it.

Hmm and it would seem h3h3 and pewdiepie are the people defending him mainly because the company Toei is copystriking usage of their material.

And it seems like the content he's reveiwing is Japanese so their fair use laws might even differ from america's where transformative works are allowed. like i feel like this is out of Youtube's control when the company itself is copy striking from the articles i've read.

this guy is making works on all sorts of other anime he and plenty others should just avoid this companies anime cause they don't want it used