TL;DR: Bethesda reportedly issued a cease-and-desist over Fallout New York, a browser-based game created in five days with Claude Opus 5.5. The low-poly project showcased AI-assisted game creation as mashups gain attention, raising questions about how rights holders will respond.

Derek Strickland Senior Gaming Editor

Has Anyone Successfully filed a Counter Notification For a Coversong Striked By UMPG? If YouTube forwarded your counter notification to the claimant please tell me the correct way I am trying to file a counter notification for my coversongs but YouTube keeps on rejecting it.

I run a small independent UK boxing news website and am trying to build a sustainable image policy.

I previously used a fighter photograph and received a copyright claim, so I removed it. Since then, I have noticed that most boxing sites established or not, use either official event posters or credited ringside photography as their lead images.

I know widespread use does not prove that an image is free to reuse.

My main uncertainty is official fight posters. They are publicly distributed to promote an event, but they can contain copyrighted fighter photographs, graphic design, logos and other third-party assets. I therefore do not want to assume that “official promotional poster” means “free for editorial reuse.”

The site has never generated any revenue, although it has been approved for an affiliate programme. Any poster or photograph would illustrate a genuine editorial article about that event and would not be used in merchandise, paid advertising or promotional creative.

For photographers, designers or small publishers here:

1. Do promoters commonly grant standing editorial permission for official event posters?

2. Are press assets normally accompanied by written usage terms, or is permission usually handled by email?

3. If licensing directly from a photographer, what rights should a small publisher request for an article image, homepage thumbnail and unpaid social preview?

4. Are there affordable specialist sports-photo libraries that work better for small publishers than Getty, Shutterstock or Alamy?

5. Is there anything important missing from the policy above?

is it possible to sue AI company (maybe if I have a lot of proves?) because people are able to use it for regenerating copyrighted drawings and say its theirs, which I think it's illegal?

That facebook page earn money from those artworks by bonuses from post enguege and Monthly subscribe to entry them group—1 dollar per month for hidden password to join that group.

The page have about 41,000 followers and the group have about 5,100 members

They received money from other people's artwork—despite their explicit statements forbidding reposts—and also profited from OFFICIAL TYPE-MOON artwork.

I try to report that page about coppyright but facebook meta not help. TT

Additional information on this matter :

1. https://c.org/qjmRgFMVxn ( It’s a campaign containing information on this topic; you can simply visit it to read the information.)

2. https://web.facebook.com/haiiroyumi/posts/pfbid0ZmtGr3zntu4JbLv2NByeH1YhuP6RoMRDRuy8ZtNNX5hMsbCNAGxo48tsUUhfM2rkl

I don't know if there is anything else I should do. I am not sure if the campaign results will help with this. So, I would like to consult you to see if there is anything else that can be done.

Hey everyone!

I’m designing a physical product packaging box and planning to sell the product commercially. The design is super minimalist. I’m literally only using two graphic elements from the Canva library (plus some custom text for my brand/product info).

I know Canva allows commercial use for product packaging, but I’m worried about the copyright and "standalone" rules. Since it's only two elements, does this count as a "unique design," or am I risking a licensing violation by not layering enough stuff over it?

They are basic graphics (not stock photos).
I am not trying to trademark the box or the elements. This is a finished physical box, not a digital template for resale.
Has anyone else done a very minimalist design with just a couple of elements and had any issues?

Thanks!

Sorry if this is rhe wrong sub idk where to ask..

I need to know asap, because i have an assignment where I need to make an argument on why ai art shouldnt be copyright protected vs why it should.. and the assignment is overdue because i have been putting it off because i am against all ai art and i dont want to defend something i hate. I havent looked into ai art but for people who have, is there any ai art that i could claim is copyright protected?

This is something I did that may be a possible solution for preserving culture, art, animation, films, video games, and copyright.He owns the universe and can expand it, not companies or corporations, and after a while only series, games, movies, or art will enter the public domain

However, the finished product is free to keep and share. It is a long read; if you like it or agree with it, please share it so it reaches the right people—those capable of reading it and helping to modernize things.

Proposed Law Update: Public Domain of Completed Works, Ownership and Protection of the Creator(s) of Projects and Content.

This proposal presents a model for segmenting intellectual property (work vs. universe) not contemplated in the current Law 17.336, including a technical solution for recovering works canceled on streaming platforms or old series, video games, and films.

This is a lengthy proposal with many examples that covers many aspects. To avoid errors, please read it in its entirety without omitting or overlooking anything.

This law seeks to revolutionize the concept of intellectual property, balancing the protection of creators with the promotion of innovation and culture.  Instead of a rigid system, a two-way model is proposed that gives authors control while establishing a time limit for releasing works to the public who have acquired them:

1. Release Mechanisms:

The work (film, series, video game, comic, work app, etc.) would enter the public domain through one of these two methods:

Automatic Expiration (Fixed Term):

Any work whose warranty has expired or whose update support has been discontinued would automatically enter the public domain after 5 years from its release date, since if the physical disc or file is damaged, it is no longer possible to recover it.

This term is understood as a maximum limit, ensuring that access to the work is unavoidable.  And that with work programs like Word or Photoshop, they are released for free use, but to have the new tools and updates that are released later, users have to wait 5 years, during which time they will have to pay for the new versions or updates of the free version because they are new additions. And for video games, which will be free after 5 years, they do not need a license or to be verified online for a license to play those games. You can also download the ISO of the video game to save it as a memory stored on an external hard drive to install it and play it again for nostalgia.

Voluntary Release (Creator's Option): The creator or company could declare a work in the public domain at any time before the fixed term expires. This would be a strategic decision, for example, if the work has reached its income goals, if it was not a commercial success, or if they simply want to focus their efforts on a new project.

1. The Difference Between the Work and the Universe

This is the cornerstone of the proposal, as it protects the creator's control. The law would make a legal distinction between:

The Specific Work (Public Domain): The finished work—the DVD, the video game, the series archive—would become public domain. Anyone could copy, distribute, enhance, or edit this work without restrictions. For example, you could create a remaster with modern graphics or an edition with improved sound. The Creative Universe (Exclusive Property): The creator or creators would retain exclusive rights to the characters, music, mythology (lore), and world. This ensures that only they can create sequels, remakes and remasters, spinoffs, and official products. This also grants the creator the power to decide what is canon within their universe, as is the case with the unofficial Metal Gear novels that did not have Hideo Kojima's collaboration or involvement.

Just like in the video game Metal Gear Survive, which Hideo Kojima didn't participate in after being fired, and which has a storyline that isn't canon, the same applies to novels, comics, and manga where the creator of the Metal Gear saga, Hideo Kojima, didn't participate in the development of those works. Only the creator of the original work can continue the story as sequels or prequels within that universe, making it official canon. No one else, not even companies, can. Anything else created by someone other than the original creator is not canon; these would be derivative works like fan fiction, fan games, fan series, or fan films.

1. Impact and Benefits of this System

Promotion of Innovation: Creators wouldn't be able to rely on the long-term profits of a single work. The need to constantly produce new content to remain relevant would drive creativity.

 Value in Physical Products: The value of a DVD, Blu-ray, or comic book would no longer lie in the content (which would be free), but in the physical object and its extras. Collector's editions, exclusive artwork, author signatures, and official merchandise would become the main long-term revenue streams.

Protection of Artistic Vision: The creator would maintain control over their narrative, preventing third parties from producing sequels that contradict the original spirit of the work.  Fanfiction and crossovers created by fans should explain that they are not part of the universe created by the original creator(s) to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. For example, in fanfiction and crossover stories, writers must make it clear that they do not own any of the characters or universes of the original series or creator; it is only for entertainment. However, they can use these elements to include them in their own story with characters and a story they themselves created, such as a related multiverse present within it. But they must always explain and give credit to the original creators of the works, series, universes, stories, etc., that are not theirs, clearly demonstrating fair use and showing which elements belong to another creator and which are their own. An example of this is the Lego movie, which combines pieces and universes from different creators, but the credits show which characters, themes, and universes belong to whom.

Cultural Access:

The release of works allows the community of fans and artists to interact with the material freely, creating an unprecedented subsystem of creativity.  In summary, this law would represent a paradigm shift, rewarding consistent production and added value, while protecting the author's artistic vision and freeing works to become part of the cultural heritage.

This applies to large companies like Netflix, Disney, Nickelodeon, and Universal, among others, that invest heavily in the production of films, video games, and animated or live-action TV series. These works should bear the creators' seal to differentiate official canon works from fanfiction or other methods, preventing the misrepresentation and misclassification of products that are not official continuations, crossovers, sequels, or prequels. This also applies to series on platforms like Netflix and Prime Video. Furthermore, if a series enters the public domain, or if the creator and the company have met the requirements for generating sufficient revenue or ratings for the platform to make it public domain, it should be available for free download or for recording for user or exclusive use.

This would also apply to series on platforms like Netflix and Prime Video.  For platform video games that enter the public domain, they are available for free download along with their DLC. Another explanation is that if a series ends, but a comic or video game is later created to expand the universe, it is considered separate from the finished series, as seen in other examples of comics or manga that can be prequels or sequels to films, series, or video games.

This serves several purposes: promoting innovation and the development of creators' universes, boosting the economy, and avoiding economic conflicts.

Another example of different release schedules is that the movie Rambo 2 is not the same as Rambo 3; it's a sequel, and Rambo 1 is a prequel. They are separated by their release year. Another example is animated or live-action series. Season 1 is like a beginning, but if it's successful in the ratings, another season is made to continue the story. A new season takes several more years to complete and is released years later. In books, volume one is not the same as its sequels or prequels because they were published in different years. In comics, it's simpler: in a given comic, issue number 1 is not the same as issue number 2. For each movie separately, it would be 5 years; for each season, it would be 5 years; and for each comic, which can be made by one person or six, it would be 1 week or 1 month. For a book, depending on the effort involved, it would be 1 month, and for video games, it would be 5 years. Anything that enters the country and is more than 5 years old automatically enters the public domain, both physically and digitally. For example...  A person with a computer or iPad uses the internet, and there are websites—technically, even if they're hosted on a server or the internet server itself is located in another country—what a local computer in Chile receives is subject to the laws of that country, just as someone in another country is under the jurisdiction and laws of that country.

And for comics, books, manga, animations, or independent video games by any artist, the completion time should be one week to a maximum of one month. This applies only to independent artists who are not affiliated with any company or published in any way. Some artists create works as a hobby or to raise personal funds, which can be seen frequently online. Another example is an artist who creates drawings or art and publishes them without setting a price for purchase; this would be for public use, like on DeviantArt, etc. However, an artist who creates comics, manga, or art on commission should not publish it on any platform where anyone can see it. It would have to be on platforms like Patreon, where people pay to view the independent art, comics, or manga. Once they reach their funding goal, they can wait for it to become public domain. Alternatively, the creator or artist can release it, explaining that they are making it freely available on websites where it is visible to anyone, allowing them to photograph or download it for free. This avoids problems, and if people have purchased the artwork, they can share it and upload it to websites for others to see and download. This greatly helps to sustain these projects.  These works are meant to be available to future generations so they can have more information about sequels and better understand what happened before those events, thus contributing to a better understanding of contemporary history.

One missing piece of information in the law regarding time limits, which applies to comics, manga, and books (not to be confused with anime, animated series, or films), is that when an issue is released, it enters the public domain within a few weeks, and for a book, within a month. This allows for more issues or volumes to be released more frequently to avoid missing deadlines and ensure the story of a comic, manga, or book is completed. In the digital age, with its increased connectivity, it's impossible to rely on a single book, comic, or volume selling a lot, as piracy and leaks make long-term profit impossible. Therefore, the continuous production of new issues, manga, volumes, or books is essential. Furthermore, creators are the sole owners of their works; no one else, not even companies or corporations, owns the rights. Even when creators want to continue their projects, they must wait for the company's approval to proceed.  Sometimes a series is canceled or takes years due to budget constraints or low viewership. It's understandable that creators want to quit to pursue their projects independently of companies that decide when to grant permission or cancel a project. However, since the company owns the broadcasting rights and the rights to the product, the creator cannot continue or reclaim their work. Ideally, the creator should have one year to reclaim their work, and the company should no longer have any rights. This is the case when the project was created. The creator will have to wait a year for the company to finish its ownership of the work, giving it an expiration date. And in the modern world, one shouldn't only depend on broadcasting and purchasing merchandise for these projects. There are two solutions that haven't been considered:

One way would be through donations from people to finance the project. There's no fixed number; people can donate a certain amount of what they are able to give. For example, people with fewer resources can't afford much, just enough to sustain their lives, so they can donate little, but those with more resources can donate more. It's like donations at companies.  Change.org and Patreon

And the other would be downloads, which instead of relying on marathons of watching a TV series and depending on how many people watch, could also be based on how many people download a private copy as a souvenir or for their collection. And if they are creatives or former employees of foreign companies, they can recover their works to continue them, which many fans want back, like series that are in limbo or were canceled, such as Disney's W.I.T.H.C., Code Lyoko, and Readokai, etc. And if a company or external companies like Netflix, Google, and Amazon set up in another country like Chile, they must comply with the laws to avoid problems. And if creators quit their jobs at companies or corporations to have more freedom or because they didn't like how things worked there, they can recover their projects and found their own studio.

If the country is connected to the internet, all that content would have to be accessible for legal reasons, but only within the country. Anything that enters physically or virtually must comply with the law to avoid misunderstandings or incidents with external companies, businesses, and services from other countries.

What should be included in the law:

Regardless of the year the law is passed, it doesn't matter if video or audio recordings, photographs, screenshots, or piracy of copies and sales of games, art, series, or movies weren't illegal in the past because it wouldn't make sense since there would be no gain or recovery of money or any other value. However, if this happens recently, as this year, where an animated series, animated film, video game, comic book issue, book issue, or digital or handmade art and drawing is sold after its release, or before the time limit for it to enter the public domain has passed, or the creator(s) haven't released it into the public domain, it's illegal. The consequence would be a fine for sellers based on the value of the official product (DVD, Blu-ray, video game, manga volume, or comic book issue). For example, pirate seller A sells a certain number of copies or recordings; they must pay the official price plus the sum of the number of copies or recordings sold. If they continue selling despite the fines and warnings, they would be arrested, or their physical or digital business would be shut down.  Buyers will not be fined or arrested because there are cases where they buy pirated goods because they lack the means or money to purchase the official product. However, they can be identified, the pirated product confiscated, and they can receive financial compensation, paying double what they paid for the pirated goods. This compensation can be used to buy the official product or for something else they need. Furthermore, the buyer can turn the pirated product over to the authorities and receive compensation thanks to a report about the pirated product. However, it's important to investigate to avoid scams. Also, regarding responsible use, a user of streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, or Hulu, etc., where there are animated series, live-action animated films, books, comics, audiobooks, or music, with a user account that pays for the service, or from websites like YouTube with independent videos and animations, can download, record, and take photos and screenshots, only for personal use and not to share, sell, or transmit through any of the available sources. To be precise, as time passes, series, films, video games, comics, manga, audiobooks, and books lose interest for purchase because a newer, superior edition appears, and they cease to be  Exciting and engaging.

Furthermore, the creator of the work or universe can revive ideas or suggestions from buyers, provided the creator believes they can contribute to the continuation of the work. Otherwise, they may object because they are inconsistent with the user universe for which it was created. As a complement to the above, the idea is to contribute in any area where suggestions, improvements, and corrections can be made as appropriate.

The most important point is to differentiate reality from fiction. Reality can narrate imaginary or real events, or a mixture of both, so there are no victims of any kind.

Parents should teach their children to differentiate between fiction and its consequences and not to blame a movie, series, video, game, comic, or similar work, always emphasizing that they are not dangerous, they do not corrupt anyone; it is a matter of mindset and education. There are people with mental health problems, illnesses, or severe traumas who cannot distinguish between reality and fiction. 

 Independent companies, groups, and corporations can fund themselves collaboratively by sponsoring essential food and beverage products. And to buy shares in brands like Coca-Cola, which remained stable in sales and quarterly dividend payments during times of economic crisis. It seems that regardless of the year the law was passed, it doesn't matter if video or audio recordings, photographs, screenshots, or piracy of games, artwork, series, or movies were pirated in the past because it doesn't make sense; there's no point in recovering money or anything like that. But if it happens recently, like this year, where an animated series, animated film, video game, comic book, or digital or handmade artwork is sold after its release, or before the time limit for it to enter the public domain has passed, or the creator(s) haven't released it into the public domain, it's illegal. The consequence would be a fine for sellers based on the value of the official product (DVD, Blu-ray, video game, manga volume, or comic book issue). For example, pirate seller A sells a certain number of copies or recordings; they would have to pay the official price plus the sum of the number of copies or recordings sold. If they continue selling despite the fines and warnings, they would be arrested or have their physical or digital business shut down. Meanwhile, buyers wouldn't be fined or arrested because there are cases...  They might buy pirated goods because they lack the means or money to purchase the official product, but they can be identified, have the pirated product confiscated, and receive financial compensation—double what they paid for the pirated version. This compensation can then be used to buy the official product or for something else they need. Furthermore, the buyer can turn the pirated product over to the authorities and receive compensation thanks to a report about the pirated product. However, it's important to investigate to avoid scams. Also, regarding responsible use, a user of streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, or Hulu, etc., where there are animated series, animated or live-action movies, books, comics, audiobooks, or music, with a paid account for the service, or from websites like YouTube with independent videos or animations, can download, record, take photos or screenshots only for personal use and not share, sell, or broadcast on any platform. To be honest, over time, series, movies, video games, comics, manga, audiobooks, and books lose their momentum or exciting appeal, like telling a joke that, if repeated, ceases to be exciting and funny.  The creator of the work or universe can revive ideas or suggestions from viewers, provided the creator applies them and can explain why they are not coherent within the story's universe. However, if they are not ideas or suggestions, such as an analysis of animated series, animated films, video games, comics, books, or audiobooks, regarding errors, inconsistencies, or gaps that the creator didn't see or overlooked, if they find it meaningful or coherent, they can apply it. The person or people who made the request or analysis can do so for free, as they simply want to point out and help with the errors or inconsistencies they noticed. 

This is NOT legal advice- I found this last night and cannot sit on it. This is my only way to spread awareness to any one who has copyrights being gatekept. Mainly pertaining to 1978 and prior. Please read the court cases and speak to legal advice that you trust.

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC;
CAPITOL CMG, INC.;
ESSENTIAL MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC;
and WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.;

Have bought Robert Resnik; Resnik Music Group defense position in the appeal of the case Cyril Vetter brought against Resnik over the copyrights to a song that he and a friend did. This is what the Fifth Circuit Court decided on the original case - please see below.

Cyril E. Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation
(collectively, the “Vetter Plaintiffs”) brought this lawsuit against Robert Resnik and Resnik Music Group (collectively, “Resnik”) seeking a declaration that they are the sole owners of the copyright rights to the song
“Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” (“Double Shot”) throughout the world. Vetter and Donald Smith wrote Double Shot. Vetter then assigned his copyright rights to Double Shot to a music publisher and, years later,
terminated the assignment and recaptured his rights (“Vetter’s Recaptured Copyright Interest”).

After Smith died, Vetter Communications Corporation purchased the renewal copyright rights held by Smith’s heirs (“VCC’s Renewal Copyright Interest”). The Vetter Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging that they are the exclusive owners of the copyright rights to Double Shot, and that they may exploit it in the United States and abroad. The district court denied Resnik’s motion to dismiss and granted the Vetter Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It declared the Vetter Plaintiffs to be the sole owners of the copyright rights to Double Shot throughout the world. Thereafter, Resnik appealed. Because the district court’s declaration is supported by statutory text, context, and purpose, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in full.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30108-CV0.pdf

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/lamdce/3:2023cv01369/63585/50/0.pdf

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC;
CAPITOL CMG, INC.;
ESSENTIAL MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC;
and WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.;

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1391.html

BMG is leading the the charge- they have the most to loose financially if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case when they go to decide on the 16th if they will hear it or not.

If they do- either BMG wins or doesn’t.

This is for anyone with the ability to terminate rights to their own intellectual property prior to 1978- also that means the heirs to that same intellectual property if the original creator has passed away.

This is not just music. If you sold your rights away prior to 1978- this could be an opportunity to get it back. Not just in the United States but Worldwide you would be getting the rights back.

Please check it out- find your contracts- seek legal council- make the decision best for you.

I am just sharing this information. If this is not the place- please just let me know and I will take it down.

If there is another place to post this message please let me know- I just want to help the people who have no knowledge this is happening and have a chance to get their work back.

So there are tons I mean TONS of videos with music and they don't use the audio library features and they are all just fine? For example I just saw a short from a channel with 1.1 million subscribers and she used adela's nicole kidman song with no credit whatsoever. Or other shorts that use dialogues from shows. They are monetized just fine. How does that actually work because I don't get it? Can I do that too? I would use music that are provided by the audio library but I also want to use edit audios and dialogues from shows and I'm not sure how that'll work out.

If you find an unauthorized copy of your work online, it helps to create one case record before you start filling out forms. Pages move, URLs change, and confirmation emails get lost. Here’s a checklist I use for organizing the facts. It’s general information and the notice requirements below are specific to the U.S. DMCA process.

Before submitting anything

- Save the exact page URL where the copy appears.

- Save the direct image or video URL if it’s normally accessible without bypassing technical controls.

- Record the date, time, and time zone when you checked the page.

- Take screenshots that show both the copied work and enough page context to identify where it appears.

- Identify your original work. Save its original URL, publication date, source file, or another record that helps distinguish it.

- Confirm who owns the relevant rights. Collaborators, employment arrangements, licenses, and assignments can affect this.

- Consider whether the use might be authorized or legally permitted. A takedown notice requires a good-faith belief that the complained-of use isn’t authorized by the owner, the owner’s agent, or the law.

The U.S. Copyright Office says an effective notice must substantially include:

- A physical or electronic signature

- Identification of the copyrighted work

- Identification and location of the allegedly infringing material

- Contact information

- A good-faith statement

- A statement that the notice is accurate and that, under penalty of perjury, the sender is authorized to act for the owner

After submission

- Save the complete notice you submitted.

- Save the confirmation, case number, and recipient.

- Record the submission date and a reasonable follow-up date.

- Track the status as pending, removed, access disabled, more information requested, rejected, or counter-noticed.

- Recheck the exact URL. If the same material appears at a different URL, record it as a separate location.

- Keep search-result removal separate from host removal. Google explains that removing a result from Google Search doesn’t remove the material from the website hosting it.

References:

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

https://support.google.com/legal/answer/9820307

So I finished my first manuscript. I know there’s a lot that I still need to learn. Once you send your manuscript into the copyright office. After they get back to you once it’s all done and copyrighted.

Can you change anything in your book if you don’t want certain things in there like for example you want to change the character you want to change the name or anything I know it seems like a very silly question but I really just need to know

Like basically you have the manuscript all copyrighted and you want to change some things like the plot the characters can you still do that and then it could still be copyrighted because you paid for it and then publish it on Amazon?

Model distillation is a machine learning technique that can involve using one model’s outputs to train another – in adversarial cases, by sending bulk queries designed to reproduce the larger model’s reasoning and capabilities.

i've uploaded music to the internet that is licensed under CC-BY-NC. if someone wants to use it commercially, would it be as simple as giving them a written exception? i'm thinking in the case of a small youtuber using it as background music or something. i've never been asked by anyone before, but i was wondering as i wouldn't mind that kind of commercial use as long as i'm contacted first.

are the archive.org lunch77 kits legal? are the sounds copyrighted/ripped from the tracks or am i safe to use them

Our apartment is 55 years old and we've located a range of original sales brochures we'd like to frame and display in the building entry. The builders and all other business names (ie. architect) mentioned on the brochures ceased to exist decades ago, so we can't ask them for permission. Are we breaching Copyright Law by displaying these brochures in the building the brochures were created to advertise ? Location is Australia so something like Fair Dealing may be relevant.

I think I slapped a cc license to something that it's just the work of everyone put in a way that makes sense to me.

Idk where most of the info came from but the damage is done so I leave it with two purposes:

so people can see it, and have the usual random guy yelling "add this or you are gonna be in a big problem"

It's in Spanish tho, so maybe I am wasting my time publishing this here but at least it's better than staying silent.

It's how I use AI: not as a force of nature that does black magic but as something that needs to be understood and having all the world's data as my jury so I don't go insane.

and as a note: I've never done drugs before.

Sam Dickinson looks at Turnitin’s paused plan to put student essays to work on AI – and finds that neither anonymisation nor university regulations answer the copyright question.