Just read that number of Muslims in Albania fell below 50%. All it took was Null shaming them about brown pedophile worship from accross the boarder. Thank you Jewsh - the eastern europe is healing.
Can this man stop single-handedly saving the white race and ensuring the future of white children?
Disney, Universal Launch AI Legal Battle, Sue Midjourney Over Copyright Claims
Interesting, if Disney won, then Midjourney and other AI models would have to move to the "closest legal approximate". The question will just be - does this creature look too much like a Yoda? yes / no. Once they get to "no", they will set this as the standard and the show will go on.
AI doesn't make copies but declinations / variations of an original. For this reason, in principle, evading copyright restrictions is simply a matter of widening the gap between the copyrighted original and the variation until the result meets the "transformative" or "substantially different" threshold. I note that this is something that Disney themselves brings up, that Midjourney could have used different parameters to make the output more "distinct" to the original.
There is also an argument I saw which is that the
input is what is causing the copyright infringement, i.e., that companies or individuals that train AI models feed them copyrighted images or information. This question was already asked in the ongoing
New Times vs Open AI case which is a legal battle between The New York Times and OpenAI over the use of copyrighted articles to train AI systems. The New York Times is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement, arguing that OpenAI's AI systems were trained on a vast amount of the Times' copyrighted articles without permission or compensation. OpenAI, in turn, argues that this use constitutes "fair use" and that it is necessary for the development of AI technology. OpenAi made a motion to dismiss and this was rejected by the NY federal judge in April of this year (2025). The case was allowed to progress.
Ultimately, if the Courts decided against Open-AI in the NY Times case, then Open AI could, again, use close legal approximations of article or characters to train their models (for example by asking ChatGPT to generate a summary of an article rather than using the article itself - which is perfectly legal to do as far as I'm aware). The problem with this approach is that it will increase costs for the AI company and also that it could impact the result by making it less accurate / relevant.
On a side note, I recently tried to generate an image of Jar Jar Binks for a joke here and the AI model failed to return anything convincing, so it's possible AI companies are already trying to avoid being caught by the potential outcome of these cases. It would be interesting to see AI models developed by countries like China for example, where they couldn't care less about intellectual property rights. My guess is that all that these lawsuits will achieve is make Chinese models more accurate than ours. In turn, the US and other western jurisdiction will move to force China to block access to their models to users in the US or Europe.
uck 
