Art created by a generative AI platform (like Stability or Midjourney) is potentially copyrightable. The fact that an AI platoform was used does not, by itself, prevent the resulting art from receiving copyright protection. However, the art is only copyrightable if the human artist’s prompt contained sufficient expressive input.
It depends on how mild the tweak is, and perhaps how different the result will be. I expect copyright protection for AI art will be very narrow, and likely only protect against direct copy/paste, or near-identical copies.
I think this says more about the virtues of the American legal system, and less about the efficiency of lawyers or any trend in the quality of judgments relative to the standard.
>Here is another telling statistic: Brazil has more law schools — some 1,240 — than the rest of the world combined. And they have turned out some 800,000 lawyers — which means there are more lawyers per capita in Brazil than in the U.S.
People in Brazil go to law school not to be a lawyer, but to be able to work for the government, since many government jobs require you a Bachelor in Law.
That's what you believe, is there evidence to support your two claims? I don't think HN should be a place where people state their "beliefs" about quantitative statements without providing a single number or citation.
No, in general the with/without prejudice language in legal rulings means that a reshaped and resubmitted case on the same issues wouldn't/would be welcomed back for another hearing.
