Universal Pictures has begun adding warnings to its movie credits, stating that its content cannot be used to train artificial intelligence. This move comes as the AI company Midjourney is facing a lawsuit from major studios like Disney and Universal. The studios claim Midjourney's tool allows users to create images that look very similar to their movie characters.

Midjourney has responded by filing a detailed statement arguing that copyright law does not give creators total control over how their work is used. The company pointed to the idea of "fair use," which permits some reuse of copyrighted material, especially if it helps people access ideas or changes the original work in a significant way. Midjourney also noted that many people who use its platform have email addresses from the very studios that are suing them, suggesting an inconsistency in their actions. Additionally, Midjourney stated that the studios did not provide specific examples of problematic images or links when making their complaints, which is usually required by US copyright law.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information for a normal person to *do* right now. The article describes actions taken by companies (Universal Pictures, Midjourney) and legal proceedings, but it does not provide steps or advice for individuals.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining the concept of "fair use" in copyright law and how Midjourney is using it as a defense. It also touches on the legal requirements for copyright complaints in the US. However, it does not delve deeply into the nuances of copyright law or the technical aspects of AI training.

Personal Relevance: The topic has indirect personal relevance. It highlights a developing legal and ethical battleground concerning AI and creative content. While it doesn't directly impact a person's daily life immediately, it could influence the future of creative industries, intellectual property rights, and the accessibility of AI tools, which may affect consumers and creators down the line.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a news event and a legal dispute without providing warnings, safety advice, or tools for the public. It's a factual report of a business and legal conflict.

Practicality of Advice: No advice is given in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article touches on issues that could have a long-term impact on intellectual property law, the development of AI, and the creative industries. The outcomes of these legal battles could set precedents for how AI is developed and used in relation to copyrighted material.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is neutral and informative. It does not aim to evoke strong emotions like fear or hope, nor does it offer psychological support.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is factual and reportorial. There are no indications of clickbait or ad-driven tactics.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have provided more value by explaining how individuals can understand their own rights regarding AI and creative content, or by suggesting resources for learning more about copyright law in the context of AI. For instance, a reader interested in this topic could research the US Copyright Office website for information on fair use or look for legal analyses of AI and copyright cases.

The dispute between Universal Pictures and Midjourney, an AI company, raises concerns about the potential impact on local communities and the fundamental bonds that hold families and clans together.

The addition of warnings by Universal Pictures, stating that their content should not be used to train artificial intelligence, is a protective measure. It aims to safeguard their creative works and, by extension, the jobs and livelihoods of those involved in the movie industry. This action, while seemingly focused on intellectual property rights, has implications for the survival and continuity of the studios' workforce, which often includes extended families and local communities.

However, the lawsuit against Midjourney, and Midjourney's subsequent response, highlight a potential threat to the very fabric of these communities. Midjourney's argument, which leans on the concept of "fair use," could be seen as a challenge to the traditional boundaries and duties that have long protected creative works and the people who create them. If widely accepted, this interpretation of copyright law could lead to a situation where the original creators' rights are diminished, and their ability to control how their work is used is undermined.

This could have a detrimental effect on the trust and responsibility within these kinship bonds. It may lead to a situation where the natural duties of parents and extended family members to provide for and protect their own are weakened. The economic and social dependencies that this could create may fracture the cohesion of families and communities, shifting responsibilities onto distant and impersonal corporate entities.

Furthermore, the potential for AI to mimic and replicate creative works, as alleged by the studios, could have a chilling effect on the procreative continuity of these communities. If artists and creators feel their work is at risk of being copied and used without their consent, it may deter them from creating, or at least from creating freely. This could lead to a reduction in the birth rate of new creative works, which are essential for the cultural and artistic survival of the people.

The accusation that Midjourney has users with email addresses from the suing studios also raises questions about trust and responsibility within these communities. It suggests a potential conflict of interest and a lack of transparency, which could further erode the trust that binds families and clans together.

The lack of specific examples provided by the studios, as noted by Midjourney, is a concern. It suggests a potential lack of respect for due process and the rule of law, which are essential for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the maintenance of community trust.

If these ideas and behaviors were to spread unchecked, the consequences could be dire. The erosion of creative rights and the potential for AI to mimic and replace human creativity could lead to a situation where the cultural and artistic heritage of these communities is at risk. This, in turn, could impact the ability of families to pass down their traditions and values, weakening the very foundations of their survival.

The protection of children and elders, the care of the vulnerable, and the stewardship of the land all rely on a strong and cohesive community. If these bonds are weakened, the ability of families and clans to thrive and continue their ancestral duties is put at risk. It is essential that these issues are resolved in a way that upholds the fundamental principles of community survival and the protection of kin.

The text presents one side of a dispute by only showing what Universal Pictures and other studios are doing and claiming. It does not offer any information about how these studios might be using AI or what their own content creation processes involve. This selective presentation makes the studios appear as the wronged party without showing their full picture.

The text uses words that make Midjourney's defense sound reasonable and the studios' actions seem less justified. For example, it highlights Midjourney's argument about "fair use" and the studios not providing specific examples. This framing helps Midjourney's case by making the studios' complaint seem weak or incomplete.

The text implies that the studios are being hypocritical by suing Midjourney while their own employees use the platform. It states, "Midjourney also noted that many people who use its platform have email addresses from the very studios that are suing them." This suggests the studios are not acting in good faith, which biases the reader against them.

The text uses a passive voice to describe the studios' actions, which can hide who is responsible for certain things. For instance, "warnings to its movie credits" and "its content cannot be used" are stated without explicitly saying who put them there or why. This makes the actions seem like they just happened.

The text presents Midjourney's arguments as facts without offering counterpoints from the studios. It says Midjourney "argued that copyright law does not give creators total control" and "pointed to the idea of 'fair use'." This makes Midjourney's legal interpretation seem correct and unchallenged within the text.

The text conveys a sense of concern from Universal Pictures and other major studios. This concern is evident when they state that their movie content cannot be used to train artificial intelligence and when they claim Midjourney's tool creates images similar to their characters. This concern serves to highlight the studios' perceived threat to their intellectual property and their desire to protect their creations. The studios are trying to make readers understand that their work is being misused, which could lead to worry about the future of creative content.

Midjourney, on the other hand, expresses a feeling of defense and perhaps a touch of frustration. This is shown through their detailed statement arguing against the studios' claims, emphasizing "fair use" and pointing out the inconsistency of studios suing them while their employees use the platform. This defensive stance aims to build trust with the reader by presenting Midjourney as a company that understands and operates within legal boundaries, while also suggesting the studios' actions are not entirely fair or logical. The mention of studios' employees using their platform is a persuasive tactic, implying that the studios' opposition is not wholehearted or consistent.

The writer uses words like "facing a lawsuit" and "claim" to present the situation factually, but the underlying emotions of the parties involved shape how the reader perceives the conflict. The studios' actions, like adding warnings, are presented as a protective measure, aiming to evoke a sense of justification for their stance. Midjourney's response, by highlighting legal principles like "fair use" and pointing out inconsistencies, attempts to shift the reader's opinion by framing the studios as potentially overreaching or hypocritical. The writer doesn't explicitly use overly emotional language, but the description of the actions and arguments naturally leads the reader to consider the motivations and potential unfairness involved. The comparison between the studios' claims and Midjourney's defense, especially the detail about employees using the platform, serves to make the studios' position seem less absolute and Midjourney's position more reasonable, thereby influencing the reader's perspective on who is in the right.