BestGuess

>Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense

Since you seem to not be aware of this: Fair use is an affirmative defense. By definition nothing I have written is therefore "carte blanche" as no defense of fair use can be ever said to be "carte blanche". This is pure sophistry on your part and transparently so.

>Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing

And mashups, photobashing, and many things likewise, remain legal and with fair use defenses in the courts as precedent. You continue to reach to any dishonesty or deflection including projection to avoid dealing with any of the points anyone has brought up.

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying

[[citation needed]]

>a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment

That's a funny way of admitting I'm right.

>It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand?

You mentally unwell or are you just an internet troll?

>but it is still fundamentally just copying, pasting, and then deforming lines together

That's called "photobashing", very common to see used by concept artists. Also, it's fair use.

So now you've got a bigger problem in that almost all concept artists are engaged in theft I suppose? Since they are "only" copying, pasting, and then deforming things together?

>Aye, there's the rub ;) How do you define "too similar"?

... Same ways I do for humans. That's why I wrote "the same as for people" that line was supposed to contextualize everything else I wrote and somehow it hasn't.

edited to fix a screwup. because somehow I swear I hit "copy" but it didn't copy

>When things seem so obvious and simple, it can be a good mental exercise to try to put yourself in the shoes of the "other side" for whom it also seems obvious and simple.

I would if I could but as I keep tryin to explain I can't because it requires I believe something that's a contradiction.

Just because it's a contradiction that makes ya more money don't mean it isn't a contradiction. Also I am that non-technical person.

See this kind of thing here is what I think is a problem and has been a problem forever. We have two opposite laws on this,

1. Copying is theft (contents of a CD [software], movies, stuff on a website sometimes, etc)

2. Copying is not theft (VHS copies of broadcasts, cassettes, etc)

Problem is "implied license" (eula-roofie) where we've, without any good reason I think, decided that,

(a) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares what you buy to be different from the medium (CD vs what's on it [software, movie, etc])

(a)(2) except when it's a really old medium like a book which you're allowed to quote, and use in derivation, but don't you dare "quote a movie" by copying portions off that DVD or blu-ray because that's different. Shut up is why.

(b) Copying is theft when someone unilaterally declares their putting something up to view, which necessarily requires copying to view (sent over internet), can't be copied for derivative fair use

(b)(2) except when it's over another old medium like public broadcast because... fuck you? I haven't a clue myself how this makes any sense and I suspect it is because "it doesn't".

(c) Copying is theft if you take the copy sent you over the internet and do anything with it somebody unilaterally declares they don't want you to be able to do

(c)(2) except if it's an old medium, like a book, where you can borrow it and quote from it and do all the fair use stuff, or borrow a picture, or a painting, or...

All the fair use and copying and other sensible stuff without this weird "implied license" stuff doesn't exist for formats we've had before to the extent it does now. These formats, in principle, are still just "you get a copy of a thing on some medium", and yet we have two completely different laws based on this pure fiction of an "implied license" that declares you can't copy even portions of one on some format because... because.

I am trying, desperately, to explain there is fundamentally and in principle no difference. The root of all of our problems and why the law doesn't make any sense is the pure fiction that there IS a difference. And I feel like a goddamn madman yelling in the streets trying to explain something that feels so dog gon obvious to me but seems like is obvious to nobody else.

The line is pretty simple for me, because it's the same line that applies to people. It doesn't matter what the training set is so long as it is not reproducing either the same thing or too similar to the thing it's trained from. Somebody else linked that you can't generally copyright style for instance, and if I recall you can't copyright algorithms or things of general knowledge either. So you can copyright "a specific instance of a thing", but not "the general idea of a thing". Here, near as I can tell, these algorithms generate some general idea of the things it's trained on and produce something specific different from the specific things. What should matter is only if it is different enough, same as it matters for people.

We've got much bigger problems though but if we, we as people generally not specifically you, can't even agree on something I see as so fundamentally basic bringing up things I think are problems would start war

Yeah, I am equally confused and I fear the law is going to royally bungle this one and we'll be stuck with something really stupid for some arbitrary number of decades or generations.

It just seems obvious to me that "human made thing to transform some set of things into a composite+transformation of those things" is fair use if fair use is to make any sense at all. Since analogously, like you said, in the same way you are taking your experience including experience of copyrighted stuff as a set of things you are drawing upon producing something of your own. All art is derivative.

It makes zero sense to me at all that it's suddenly a problem that art is derived if, instead of artist directly painting something, artist sets up some device that paints something. In both cases "human takes inputs and produces something".

Unless I'm missing something too, but based on what I see so far I just feel like I'm from mars and don't belong here.

That doesn't make any sense to me as a line, as the human set up the machine to generate some way to generate images. The human still did "it", the "it" is just one step removed, and we've tons of things where some "it" is one step removed from the human where your line doesn't apply in law or people's concepts.

That's too real and gosh dang horrifyin

Yeah you see that a lot when all of a sudden every single one in the US market yanks out every affordable option all at the same time or "mysteriously" makes them impossible to buy but somehow that isn't collusion or anything. Then these same lying fuckers in suits declare americans "don't want" those options they conspired to make as difficult as possible to get in the first place.

You saw the same thing with microcars or anything especially affordable the past couple years. They only want to sell giant gas guzzling insanely expensive XXL crap and are doing their best to keep affordable shit off the market meanwhile it all sells just fine everywhere else. It's obvious how rigged the whole thing is same with real estate and "automatic price adjustments" that coincidentally biases things in favor of landlords, same for other software that biases things in favor of other colluding fucks like the auto industry so they merely "coincidentally" conspire. It's all total bullshit.

What pisses me off is the fact people somehow think an industry agreeing to use algorithms that only go in their favor and most of all if they all use those algorithms together doesn't count as collusion.

That's not fair. More like "cannot afford" as in can't afford to live anywhere close enough to anything paying enough to afford to live near enough to work for it. Add to that XXXL trucks and giant SUV's that can't see crap and irrational hatred for bikes on the road and you've got a double whammy of being both too scared even if you're close or too far to be practical. Add on top the insane weather most of the country has, and total complete lack of path maintenance for bikes even when you've got bike paths. This ain't like some country like finland where I've seen videos where they plow and prepare roads for bikes half the time sidewalks and bike lanes are just impassable mounds of ice and sludge if you're up north.

Now course everyone and their mother may wanna chime in and go off about some anecdote in their city for them but you really gotta ask yourself how normal is your personal experience really? Just lookin it up various averages say 41 mile commute, 16 mile commute, 20-30 minute commutes, don't matter what estimate I pull up the average is way too high to make biking feasible.

So no it ain't "americans dumb ha ha" it's "most people can't do it" and redesigning the whole country to be able to is gon take a hot minute

> They're really not supposed to be litigators of "what actually happened," which may not be knowable

seems like best thing would be to be able to say "this is not verifiable" or similar. seems to me these issues people have could be solved or improved a lot by having more and more nuanced info not less. Like if people are just so damn insistent the myth stay up there it should also be fine to point out "though there seems to be no evidence supporting this claim or claimed notion" when the books or stuff cited have nothing but more claims. More info, more context, not less

Seems to me it'd be a lot more high quality if you could simply have points about truth or things being opinions, or speculation, or rumors, or myth, stuff like that. Or simply noting there's disagreement or things about truth. Maybe you can but I ain't about to spend my whole year learning a bureaucratic jargon just to "sneak in" what should be effortless to put there. Get my frustration?

See what I mean? Book just repeats the myth. Exactly right. Said by who? According to what? It's just a claim, and in my opinion contradicted by every single public document and contemporary marketing or Colt related material I could find from the time period. Same thing with military, of course that would be contradicted by any/every military related service rifle training program or materials ever.

Still on wikipedia though. Because writing bullshit without any source is fine as long as it's in print, I guess?

Well maybe I'm a bumpkin but seems to be the fix is the truth, and if the truth ain't clear there's no reason you can't have explanations or explain claims repeated elsewhere aren't evident in something like source materials. It isn't like you got a floppy disk and have to cram an encyclopedia on it.

Simple enough fix to my mind. If them "dragons", and I like that image there I think it fits, pull bullshit like that you just remove them. Which you can now easily do because whether or not Colt claimed something is a matter of truth that can be checked. In this case obviously not. Simplifies everything and gets people talking about the truth and how to best represent what's true, even if it's disputed, instead of having what's very clearly false with no hope of even clarifying "this appears to be a myth".

Don't even have to be about science, it can just be random little myths that spring up people try to correct. I happen to know stuff about firearms, got quite a few, from one of those places people can have quite a few. One day I'm scrollin down reading history on the M16 trying to remember something and I find the dumbest goddamn thing I ever heard, this claim the M16 got issued without cleaning kits and Colt claimed it was "entirely self-cleaning". I don't know if ya ever used firearms but that would never happen, and is the absolute dumbest claim I ever saw in my life. "reduced fouling" don't mean "entirely self-cleaning".

Now I don't really know how to use wikipedia but I thought it was one of those fake edits people might do as a joke. Went checking edit history and stuff to find out and turns out someone else tried to point out the myth too and some jackass with authority is jealously guarding that myth to keep it on the page forever.

Went and checked the government documents myself, among other things there is no Colt material making that claim in that context. Government also ordered cleaning kits, Colt supplied cleaning kits, so it's also contradicted by fact there too. Simple thing is there just weren't enough to go around, supply shortages, and someone at some point created the myth by misunderstanding that a design to "reduce fouling" thereby "reduce cleaning" don't in any way no hell no how imply "self-cleaning" in that way. Yet the claim remains on wikipedia, without clarification, because I guess some idiots repeating the myth in a book makes the myth okay.

I went and checked that book, too. No source of the myth in the cited book. It's completely fuckin made up and anyone with half a brain and a day using a firearm would know that, but there it is. All because someone, for some reason only God knows, personally wants it to be there and has the authority to keep it there.

How readable is it for someone who doesn't know much about this kind of thing?

seems to me like that's what we've got right now sadly

that got me curious and after skimming some stuff the past half hour or so seems like it's the same for things like federal expungement and the same problem. Like you said, social contract, so lots of minor stuff has become a life sentence the same way and there's no expungement still as if felonies only cover like cartel conspiracies or something. State wise it's just lottery as to what protections you got if anything

I ain't no lawyer and I kind of opened a box I can't see the bottom of all on a sudden. More I skim the worse it seems and now I'm confused nobody seems to care who could do something about it given how abused I'm seeing people say it is. The public records and stuff I mean. Like would an apartment care if your federal misdemeanor or felony was littering at a national park or something, or just see "federal" and treat you like a wanted terrorist? Just leaving people to rot by chance seems fucked up to me

problem is that stance is like a vicious cycle. Can't get worthwhile employment screws everything from your family to your social life, worse if you can't drive anymore too, and all that is right back into why those people would be alcoholics or using other drugs and stuff in the first place.

my thing is I'm all for justice but not justice that creates more of the same problem in others or the same people giving them even more reason to give up with, well, it's like branding people on the forehead. Why be surprised when the outcast keeps doing outcast stuff when they're never allowed to be anything but an outcast? it's like if society shot itself in the foot then is outraged demanding to know who shot it in the foot.

tryin to say it feels good but just feelin good don't fix nothin

I reckon it has got to do with bein rural and poor, or maybe different kinds of european family cultures preserving different attitudes? Where I'm from in the south you didn't ask at all if you knew what was good for you all about keepin up appearances and you had to be all sly about helping people out. More poor somebody is more sly you got to be. Bein in a city nobody gives a darn but way back when that darn was given pretty darn hard.

Just a guess but could be that attitude has lots more to do with how many are poor or not and how many generations they've been poor, or lived in cities, like a lag time sorta thing. Nothing I really know about just sharing because it might be interesting even if wrong

problem is nobody blowin the whistle on that and it'd involve a lot of hands. Might be more like occupy made companies aware of an untapped market and they saturated it with virtue signaling trying to get that youth money instead. maybe bit of both. I just know I ain't heard anyone saying they got proof for the conspiracy part and the "companies virtue signaling" thing is a time honored tradition

I think it's because of how memory works so it's like asking "okay but what if I had a different brain" I wish. Retrieving what you learn is the best way I know to remember what you're learning, so writing about it would help. Unless everything I was told is wrong?

I write a lot but don't publish anything anywhere. It's kind of like that bo burnham song "look who's inside again". I feel like when I share anything I think, no matter how revised, detailed or not, whatever advice followed, all I find is "another reason to hide again". feeling like having too much to say is a lot like having nothing at all to say in that it amounts to the same thing.

As something of a dumdum myself I think I know why. Corporations want people to be able to do their thing as easy as possible to make money, while people not directly motivated like that and not motivated to make it as easy as possible can do anything else. So instead of "make sure it's just a button click" it's "what, you didn't read all 580 pages of the documentation and all the changelogs and the code on github and compile it yourself on a custom built $40,000 machine? We don't help your kind around here go away" and yeah people go right back to windows or twitter or whatever.

Jokin aside I'm just trying to explain there is a real problem there. Feeling smug about the result of that problem doesn't fix it but it is really easy to do

that right there is what they call a conflict of interest. or what we says down here "speakin out both sides o'yer yap"

Wherever you draw the line someone's going to be upset at where the line is. You're echoing the other guy's concern, really everyone's concern. Same issue with everything from criminal justice to government all around so there's not really any value in yelling personal preferences at one another, even assumin I disagree which I don't. That ain't what I'm about in either case and it don't change what I said about removing options by assuming people suck being a bad way to go about doing anything.

Might as well remove all comment sections because people suck so assume there's no value having one. Pick any number of things like that. Just ain't a good way to go thinking about anything let alone defending a company for removing it, since the same logic justifies removing your ability to criticize or defend it in the first place. You an AI expert? Assume no, so why we let you talk about it? Or me? People suck so why let you comment? On and on like that.

Went and googled things associated with smoking and topping the list is ADHD. I don't know nothin about that just saying what my initial thought is because I was wondering why it doesn't talk about prevention cause-wise. Like maybe people smoke to treat something unsafely that medication, therapy, or other stuff, could. So medicaid should just pay for blanket testing and medication for ADHD then, wouldn't save as much but would still save a lot if the medications are cheap and the testing is cheaper than cancer and stuff.

I don't know just a thought don't know why the article didn't mention it since you'd think "causes of or associations with" smoking that're also treatable would fall in preventative healthcare or somethin. Thoughts? Main thing is I don't want medicaid or the like going "welp you smoke you don't qualify" which seems like a government way to handle it in my nightmares.

alright. thanks for your thoughts