Pedos ruin everything…

  • ram@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ruling was that “fictional” abuse material was legal because it was an expression of free speech. Courts have thus far unanimously agreed, however, that generative AI doesn’t constitute authorship. Under the same principle, generative AI should not constitute protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t follow that logic. We would be in bad shape if we applied the standard of copyrightability to protected speech. By that logic, making a derivative Winnie The Pooh work would be unprotected speech on the grounds that it was public domain.