@Mistral@lemmings.world You still there?

When copying is legal for profit, it’s safe to assume that it’s also legal without profit.

West Germany

Oh wow. Looks like you fell into a time warp, comrade. No spoilers but it’ll all get better in 1953. But stay away from Moscow in March.

Yes. You’ve heard about billions being invested in new data centers in the EU?

Then there’s also the “EU-US Data Privacy Framework”. People here don’t really understand what the GDPR is about.

False.

Germany built up it’s army in preparation for attacking the rest of Europe. Adults usually know this. Sorry if I have misjudged your age.

Germany and Soviet Russia were allies and cooperated in the attack on Poland. This only fell apart when Hitler betrayed Stalin by invading the Soviet Union.

It is said that in all his life, Stalin only ever trusted one person: Adolf Hitler. When German communists conscripted into the Wehrmacht defected in the night before the attack, to bring warning to the Soviet Union, Stalin had them shot. The last supply train carrying grain for Nazi Germany crossed the border less than 2 hours before the launch.

False. Western Europe increased arms spending in response to German aggression. Germany increased arms spending… well.

Who’s calling for that boycott? Putin?

Respect for the true pacifists out there, but investing in EU-based defense industry is hardly questionable by ordinary standards.

The answer is yes. There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.

Yes, Otherwise it wouldn’t lower the value.

There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.

I don’t know what that is talking about.

Not comparable.

Samples are actual copies which are part of a song. Someone might claim that a hip hop artist just steals the good bits of other people’s songs and mashes them together without contributing any meaningful creativity on their own. Well. History shows that such arguments were quite foolish. Nevertheless, the copies are there, and they do add value to the new song.

To get an LLM model to spit out training data takes careful manipulation by the user. This rarely happens by accident. It also does not add value to the model. It does the opposite: The possibility of accidentally violating copyright lowers the value.

Huh? The court affirmed that there are limits to private property. Not sure how to interpret that comment.

Yeah. The US Supreme Court made a serious mistake when it killed hip hop.

Still, samples are copies, even if just copies of a short part of the original. It’s not the same.

Maybe he doesn’t. Someone like Alsup is an exception. Doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in the end.

it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.

Again?

Source2

I can’t see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.

I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.

If you’re into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There’s a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.

You still thinking that you don’t have the right to photograph people in a public place and post them on photography forums for instance.

Put like that, that’s exactly correct. That’s not a recognized right in the EU, unlike data protection. That does not mean that it is forbidden, provided that the GDPR is followed.

Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.

I have very patiently and kindly answered your questions and corrected your misunderstandings. I am not sure what you expect of me. Should I google explanatory links for you and paste the content here? I feel it would be rude to treat you like you are a child.

Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here

Yes. That is what the member states are instructed to do. What is unclear?

So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online

That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.

Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.

You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO’s website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don’t seem to value that favor.

Article 85

Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,

I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. “Presumption of privacy” is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.

Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.

Do you need any further help?

I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,

I didn’t write there was one. It sounds like you “know” that photography is “protected” because you need that to be true.

it’s quite easy for you to Google this

Indeed. For anyone who’s not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.

but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.

That’s true. You can’t because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.

Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.

What do you mean “again”?

The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.