He probably has access to all sorts of experimental and esoteric drugs given the huge Russian sports doping programs. With all sorts of concerning and unknown side effects; both mental and physical.
Still - the life expectancy for men in Russia is 68 years. Putin is 69 year old. He must look very old to younger autocrats in the Kremlin.
Few years old but still oddâŚ
That the company saw no need to explain why they simply didnât do what they had promised to do is chilling. I bet many more people suffered because of this behavior and were without the ability to seek compensation.
Did they get it all fixed up before the parents got home?
Apple has filed a patent application for a device that â wait for it â has the computer and the keyboard all in one unit. Mind. Blowing. Except for one thing: isnât that what all computers used to look like?
[âŚ]
The board also rejected Thalerâs argument that the piece was produced as a work-for-hire for a human, saying Creativity Machine canât itself enter a legally binding agreement to perform the task and that there was again no human authorship involved anyway.
Well, OK.
ETA Link: Gov. Kay Ivey Asks for Immediate Removal of Russian Liquor from State ABC Stores - Alabama News
Russia already got paid, and so this just punishes the taxpayers of Alabama.
Sounds about right for the geniuses we have in public office.
@anon33932455
Abbott did it as well. Seems pretty performative as a request from the gov. But some of the businesses here were doing it on their own as more of a way to show solidarity with Ukrainians
if anyone canât obtain their usual Russian vodka or wants to switch for ideological reasons, my favorite vodka is Danish. however, their distillery (in the US, anyway) is in Louisville, KY, of all places; so the price is super nice due to no import fees
Makes sense for it to be in Louisville. FrĂŻs is owned by Sazerac, whoâs principle office is in Louisville. Thereâs a ton of distilling capacity in the city, and vodka is a quick easy liquor to make if youâre waiting for your bourbon to age and donât want to have too much downtime on your stills.
So it appears out of nowhere! I really like that!
Wait - after rereading that it says that they decided it could not be assigned to a human. I wonder if that means that corporate ownership of the copyright is still an open question. Corporations might be people, but they are definitely not humans (yet)
Iâm rather fond of Sobieski vodka, which is Polish rye vodka (owned by a French company.) Pretty bottle, too.
One of the fundamental reasons for the decision is that even before you get to the question âwho owns this?â, you have to decide is this is a thing that can be subject to copyright.
And the US Copyright Office -along with pretty much everyone else- takes the stance that only human beings (actual carbon based, hornless, free, featherless bipeds,etc.) can make creative works.
And also that computer programmes are not human beings.
The guy bringing the claims wants to change one or other or maybe both of those.
Itâs interesting that the Copyright Office was apparently willing to agree that the programme created the work without human input rather than holding that the âworkâ was merely the end result of human activity in writing the programme, selecting its inputs, etc.
That seems odd to me since there are certainly plenty of artists who are more conceptual rather than actually executing the work and who would still claim it as âtheirâ work because they thought of it and gave the instructions on how to create it.
What fundamentally is the difference between a Sol Lewitt wall painting or Damien Hirst telling an assistant where and how and in what colours to paint spots and a guy telling a machine how to create rules to make a picture?
Iâd say the programmerâs claim to copyright is a lot stronger than the conceptual artistâs but thatâs just me, I guess.
Yeah, that was my thinking as as well, though I guess one could make the argument that the creator has copyright over the program itself, but not the resulting works? Seems silly though.
And where does one draw the AI line? Does this mean that no one owns the copyright on a Bored Ape? Those were all, as I understand it, created by a computer program assembling a collection of human created art assets (stupid eyes, stupid hats, stupid mouths, stupid accessories, etc) using a programmed template to create 10k individual apes.
It would be amusing if it turns out that no one actually owns anything in that particular case.
I think the significant part here is the the applicant expressly disclaimed human input into the process and the Office isnât inclined to argue.
Reading their letter linked in the Register article, it includes:
Because Thaler has not raised this as a basis for registration, the Board does not need to determine under what
circumstances human involvement in the creation of machine-generated works would meet the statutory criteria for
copyright protection. See COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 313.2 (the âcrucial questionâ of human authorship is whether a
computer is âmerely being an assisting instrumentâ or âactually conceive[s] and execute[s]â the âtraditional
elements of authorship in the workâ) (quoting U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, SIXTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1965, AT 5 (1966)).
So itâs a relatively well known issue that the law can already deal with - except that techy edgelords always want to argue that their thing is so, like, new and fuddy duddy lawyers and judges canât handle it.
Oddly enough dealing with weird stuff people do is what the law is all about.
