Key points:
-
Cara’s Rapid Growth: The app gained 600,000 users in a week
-
Artists Leaving Instagram: The controversy around Instagram using images to train AI led many artists to seek an alternative
-
Cara’s Features: The app is designed specifically for artists and offers a ‘Portfolio’ feature. Users can tag fields, mediums, project types, categories, and software used to create their work
-
While Cara has grown quickly, it is still tiny compared to Instagram’s massive user base of two billion.
-
Glaze Integration: Cara is working on integrating Glaze directly in the app to provide users with an easy way to protect their work from be used by any AI
more about: https://blog.cara.app/blog/cara-glaze-about
According to their terms and service, everything uploaded to their website is then owned by them. Doesn’t seem very artist friendly to me.
deleted by creator
This seems worded to muddy the waters about who actually has the copyright.
Monetization plan might be to sell prints of platformed artists work, with out any need for pesky royalties.
Why did you specifically not put in bold this part and are the property of Cara. Clearly you saw it off you took the time to avoid putting stars around it.
Ok, the lady behind Cara just WON a f-ing copywrite lawsuit against some dick that stole her artwork. I’m 100% sure the wording is so if you *think* about stealing from Cara, she will come after your ass with both guns blazing.
Regardless, their terms of service let’s Cara not only sell prints and your artwork to third parties but also let’s them sell your artwork for AI training if they wanted to.
Instagram for all it’s fault specifically says that they don’t own your artwork and only get a license to show it.
I don’t really care what she won, people tend to cave really fast if given proper financial incentive.
No, it doesn’t. It states that the copyrighted works are the property of Cara and/or the artist who created the Works, except where otherwise noted. This specifically would cover cases where someone attempts to claim that a Work they found on Cara isn’t copyrighted because a copyright notice wasn’t explicitly stated, and doesn’t make explicit claims over the ownership of any arbitrary Work. For it to work in the way you’re claiming, the “or” cannot be present as it being there implies the existence of Works on the site which Cara does not have property rights to. Who actually possesses the property rights to any given Work is left, apparently intentionally, ambiguous.
In what country is that a thing?
None that I’m aware of, but for a copyright to be asserted in the US a human must be associated with it as a consequence of the monkey selfie case. My reading is that this would cover the edge case of an anonymous, unknown poster submitting the work, allowing Cara to act as the default rights holder unless otherwise asserted by a person or user.
Why are you twisting it to make it seem like Cara is doing a good thing? What’s your motive? What is the difference between Cara owning it by default and the uploader owning it by default? Why can’t it just be the owners property?
Because “anonymous” isn’t necessarily a person who can answer for copyright. They literally gave you a use case where it could help in the content you’re arguing against…
What has this got to do with who owns the copyright? And why is anonymous uploading allowed anyway?
It doesn’t work like that. The monkey selfie case did not set any kind of precedence. Animals cannot own property, including copyrights.
For a work to be under copyright in the US, it has to be an “original work of authorship” and contain “a modicum of creativity”. Some countries allow broader copyrights. Photographs that are accidentally triggered are public domain. CCTV footage is a gray area. Setting up a camera and luring animals into triggering it, might produce copyrighted images. A court would have to decide if the individual circumstances constitute authorship and a modicum of creativity. An animal snagging a camera and triggering it certainly doesn’t. The monkey selfie case did nothing to advance the law.
A public domain image is just that. Attempting to assert ownership over one is either an error or fraud. I don’t know what the US rules are when a rights-owner can’t be found. I doubt that you can just become the default owner of some property just by writing something on a website.
literally next sentence.
This sounds like a precedent…
Animals never could own property. PETA sued to get the monkey recognized as author and thus copyright-holder of the selfie. Or, more likely, to generate publicity as that was obviously never going to happen.
That’s not true
???
The clause is literally a comment or so down and available on their website.