News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by wokwokwok on Saturday December 09, 2023 @12:02AM (#38578768)
I’m not speculating about that.

I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case.

> I think…

This is precisely my point. Most people don’t care what I think; or, you, or the OP on this topic.

Opinions are thick and fast.

What people care about is what the court rules.

Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by surfacedetail on Saturday December 09, 2023 @05:12AM (#38580479)
>I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case.

This adds the caveat "as far as I can tell". That's a caveat that the capability to produce Getty outputs has been removed, it can be tested and amended if new information comes to light.

>What people care about is what the court rules.

Courts also rely on experts and expert testimony, the judge here is even citing a law professor's opinion. The idea that judges never rely on legal experts and commentators is strange.