Methylman
Oh yeah - you’re talking about that cabal of elites who prey on small children in the basement of a pizza restaurant right (it sounds stupid when he said it and it sounds stupid when you said it).
Talk to a lawyer and ask how long you can prolong a parking ticket if you happen to have a few million in the bank - let alone one of the most complicated conspiracies of lying to the federal govt the country has ever seen.
I’m not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to ‘use’ the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky…
If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it’s just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing
Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, “but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
It’s right on the courts’ info page
Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.
I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:
> Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.
I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?
The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected
