• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “Damage to a computer” is legal logorrhoea, possible interpretations range from not even crashing a program to STUXNET, completely under-defined so it’s up to the courts to give it meaning. I’m not at all acquainted with US precedent but I very much doubt they’ll put the boundary at the very extreme of the space of interpretation, which “causes a program to expose a bug in itself without further affecting functioning in any way” indeed is.

    Which is fun because the people stealing from you face absolutely no retribution at all for their theft,

    Learning from an image, studying it, is absolutely not theft. Otherwise I shall sue you for reading this comment of mine.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Damage to a computer” is legal logorrhoea

      The model is the thing of value that is damaged.

      Learning from an image is not theft

      But making works derivative from someone else’s copyrighted image is a violation of their rights.

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        So any art done in a style of another artist is theft? Of course not. Learning from looking at others is what all of us do. It’s far more complicated than you’re making it sound.

        IMO, If the derivative that the model makes is too close to someone else’s, the person distributing such work would be at fault. Not the model itself.

        But again, it’s very nuanced. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.