Post

As much as i hate parents posting pictures of their kids on the internet, it doesn't give someone the right to release a disgusting machine, doing disgusting things with it, to make money.

The commenter is an IP attorney, and context collapse comes for us all

I mean, it’s probably true in the limited “can’t sue for copyright violation” sense. But it’s not a license permitting illegal conduct (which isn’t a thing) or even releasing other claims (probably) like defamation or false light or whatever.

It doesn't make it legal. It means that the user can't sue for it as a violation for their copyright, which would otherwise be the clearest and most straightforward method of stopping it.

If the usage is criminal, I don’t think it’s inconsistent — whether you construe it as the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or as a public policy limitation that contracts to commit crimes are void, “I will not use this license agreement to commit literal crimes” seems like an implied term

And an element that must be proven: "That [name of defendant] [specify conduct that plaintiff claimsprevented plaintiff from receiving the benefits under the contract]" It just doesn't cover this

Of course this only matters in a world in which Ireland hasn't defected to the broligarchy.

I’m not going to go look, but I bet most of the victims didn’t upload their pics to Twitter or to the AI app.

A license is a contract. A contract is illegal if it has an explicitly illegal end or calls for performance by illegal means. A license prohibiting a person from suing X for any civil claims arising out of the use of images that person posts to X satisfies neither prong.

You can rent a car and then use it to commit vehicular homicide, but this would not void the contract for the car no

I suppose the license could be structured not to actually license the licensee to perform the criminal action, but instead to waive the licensor’s right to sue in the event that they do.

No. A contract for illegal activity is void. But a general "you can do what you want with my pictures" license is valid and will prevent a copyright suit even if the thing that gets done is illegal

I think there's a LOT of those. Unfortunately, some images that can probably never be traced. I saw some creeper upload voyeuristic gym photos already. taking photos of strangers with the explicit purpose of having grok make porn of it.

No, both. "I thought I could use this" isn't a defense to copyright infringement. X would just have a claim against that malicious actor

Also "Grok" isn't making these anymore than a stove "made" a meal. It's a vital tool for a process used and initiated by PEOPLE. The ones prompting this shit need to be arrested. The ones "jail-breaking" it explicitly to produce kiddie porn need to be arrested. And Elon needs to be arrested.

They need to put a good few % of those making the requests behind bars for a year+ as well. Enough so that the rest of them are scared it might happen to them, and to demonstrate that society still cares about, and vigorously enforces, the norms that are being trashed here.

Yes. It doesn't make it no longer criminal, but it means the user can't sue

They should be fined, and if they can't (or won't) get Grok to stop then you talk about putting them out of business. People using your product in illegal ways shouldn't automatically mean the company gets put out of business.

Like, many of the pics aren't even being uploaded by anyone with any claim to them beyond finding them somewhere.

No, the point is that state criminal prosecutors don't work for the feds; they work for the states. So the US President/Attorney General can't stop a prosecution in the same way they can when the charges are Federal brought in Federal court.