The French actually enforce their laws. The US has assets in France that can be seized to cover fines if need be.
FaceDeer
joined 1 year ago
They have meaning in France. The US doesn't have any say over that. If the US breaks those contracts then they can be sued in France and French judges can award them penalties.
Style cannot be copyrighted.
And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.
Hardly. There are many ways to "cripple" the US without need to resort to a simple-minded military slugfest.
They could act to support Trump's next reelection bid, for example. That'd be more devastating to American power than a nuke.
I don't even now what Trump is wanting us to "give in" on, or if he has anything in particular that he wants. Isn't his position basically that the tariffs are good for the US purely in their own right, and exist for their own sake? He thinks that by doing this it'll magically revive the domestic car manufacturing industry and then they'll have tons of cars and money and everyone else will think he has giant hands.
For many years I have argued that Putin's actions in Ukraine and Europe "make sense" based on the assumption that no country in the world actually has agency in its actions other than a handful of superpowers - Russia, the US, and China. Any other country not on that list must be a vassal state of one of the ones that is, so if the Eastern European countries are no longer Russian vassals then that must logically mean they are now American vassals.
It would appear that Trump is under a similar delusion. He's apparently trying to beat countries into submission that he views as already being American vassals. Hence why he thinks stuff like the "51st state" garbage is no big deal, since in his view Canada's already 90% of the way to being a state anyway.
You didn't read the article I linked. The term came into use before LLMs were a thing, it was originally used in relation to image processing.
They don't have the bizarre "charisma" that Trump possesses. I'd roll those dice.
Economics involves understanding and predicting the behaviour of large groups of people, doesn't seem all that far off topic here. And of course the way that people react to AI-generated content in products will be quite relevant to lots of people trying to market such products.
This guy's court cases are widely misunderstood by the general public.
In a nutshell: he's a crank who is trying to tell the court "I don't hold a copyright to the thing my AI produced, my AI holds the copyright."
And the court tells him: "Only people (or legal persons, like corporations) can hold a copyright. Your AI cannot. If you say that you yourself don't either, we can't force you to have a copyright on it. So I guess that thing has no copyright and is therefore in the public domain."
And then everyone gasps and exclaims "the court just ruled that AI-generated things are in the public domain!"
Did they specifically allow "Ghibly style?" Or did they just loosen the restrictions on asking for styles in general, and Ghibly style just turned out to be the popular one that memes started snowballing around?