~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

Not really sure how it’s relevant here?

I’m skeptical just because their email signature changes - I haven’t touched mine in years, so why does Prof. Kutaywa go from being first supervisor to just supervisor?

While that’s a factor, it’s a very minor one - soft metals (lead and copper) are used as projectiles primarily because the bullet itself deforms to engage with the rifling when fired (softer materials also present far less wear on the rifling as a result - this is why shotguns, which are smoothbore and thus far less delicate, often use steel projectiles). For rifles, the weight of the projectile is very secondary to the mechanical properties of the material while it’s being fired, and in fact there are many brands of ammunition available that use steel cores jacketed with a softer metal (though almost entirely for their penetrating ability - the deformation of a solid round you get with softer materials is actually far more desirable when hunting since you’re less likely to go through the animal you’ve shot.)

Are there really herpetologists saying “don’t say snek”?

For sure! Decent people gotta stick up for each other on here, especially in the face of such prolific (and increasingly amusing) misinformation.

That person was also me, funnily enough!

since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law

Buddy, patents are public domain. That’s the whole point of a patent.

As part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor, patents are published into the public domain.

the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter

No they don’t - they’ve published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?

Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity.

Nope!

One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

It’s uncommon but public domain works can absolutely have their copyright restored.

No, it’s from wikipedia.

Not Copyrightable != Public Domain

Not being under copyright means it is in the public domain. That’s literally the entire definition.

The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

invalidate the contract between the user.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn’t in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn’t change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.

The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.

Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:

If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt  from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.

God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.

Nope, that’s exactly what it means.

Some works are not covered by a country’s copyright laws, and are therefore in the public domain; for example, in the United States, items excluded from copyright include the formulae of Newtonian physics and cooking recipes.

Hey, so here’s the official opinion of the US copyright office on this matter.
If you look at this part right here:

“When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.”

That’s where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.

I mean sure you can ignore the court ruling, but here’s the copyright office’s guidance (which they also provided later in an edit) and it clarifies that AI generated work is not eligible for copyright

When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.[31]
As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.[32]

You already responded to it?

Aight and the proof already provided shows that it is in fact considered to be in the public domain, which proves you’re wrong.

Er, no - about it not being public domain. That’s the claim you made that has been shown to be false. Trying to make it about AI being bad is the walking back.

No it’s that you’re trying to walk back a provably false claim and then deflect the claims by pretending the people calling you out are doing so because they like AI instead of, you know, valuing the truth.

Yeah most of their comments give me that “am I having a stroke” you get with LLM output. If they’re not a bot I have no idea what they’re saying, at any rate.

if you have two nicee wide monitors that’s a pretty good way to do it, gives you the benefits of a 2x2 setup but without the bezel breaking up your code halfway through.

Canada (9.98M sqkm) is only slightly larger than the US (9.83M sqkm), so it checks out that they’re really close in size here

Yeah, even in my so-shitty-sometimes-cows-wandered-in highschool we learned about this (and a whole lot more about Russian-american cooperation post space race.)