Perhaps a stupid question, but why 100k? And wouldn't hard, tangible limits like that need adjusting (up or down) depending on inflation, the economy, etc?

In New York it doesn't help that the start of the 40s, and mid 50s IIRC, mean the demolition of the New York, Westchester and Boston (which closed in 1937), as well as the closure of the New York Central Putnam Division, which really multiplied railroad accessibility into the NYC area (even if you needed to connect at Harlem River if you take the NYW&B (which would have been alleviated if the W&B were able to take over the 3rd Ave El and use it to go into Manhattan directly), or connect at Highbridge if on the Putnam Div.).

Man, we sure were screwed out of a more extensive rail system.

Citation? Because it ... COULD be true, but merely asserting factual correctness alone doesn't do that.

If true... basically, employers and managers being either incompetent, or just stupid? Not really a mark against WFH if employers see who is abusing WFH, doesn't fire them (or discipline them at the least), and tries to wreck WFH. If anything, anyone with a functioning brain can see the fault on employers and/or managers if that is their response rather than just dealing with the problem employees.

Well, neither are they - nor are we talking about the whole of life either.

WFH =/= "not wirhing with people," either.

Got a citation for that?

No, it shouldn't because that's not what copyright was supposed to be for. It was meant to incentivize creating, and continuing to create (and provide a mechanism for continually enriching the public domain).

Indeed. The problem is not the concept of copyright, IMO, but with what it has become.

Take the duration and bring it back to well within an author's life time, as the implementation in the U.S constitution intended.

This was crucial - as it encouraged authors to not just create, but to keep creating rather than just sitting on their asses for the rest of their life. It was also crucial because it meant the public domain got consistent, and regular additions from which anyone could take portions, pieces of a work, or really small bits that could still be owned if the work were under copyright, and remix it, transform it, or incorporate it and al ot of other bits and bobs into a fully new work (like everything else, in the past).

Perhaps more controversially, I say go and retroactively shorten the duration based on publication date so works that should have become public domain long ago can finally be public domain.

Really? I mean, overtraining on specific works and ovefitting IS a thing, absolutely - fortunately a thing that is supposed to be undesired, but I find it hard to believe that (at least based on an elementary understanding of how this is supposed to work, granted) that no examples of img2img dishonesty exist.

The distinction seems kind of odd - wouldn't borrowing a book be legally allowed but not necessarily authorized - and a way for someone to learn from a work?

It really doesn't, as opposed to licensing status or lack thereof, whether licensing is needed or not. Draw the line legally at using works based on copyright status, if you're in a country where copyright is automatic, you just killed off making opt-in "alternatives," since copyright being automatic means that if you make a work, it is copyrighted upon being put in a fixed, tangible medium, even if you allow it to be used for say AI training.

Coming from the company that has gotten in trouble dor nicking others' photos before, tries to license out public domain images all the time (loads of PD images on their site not just with their watermarks, but with "licensing options), who IIRC even owned the subsidiary at the center of controversy over trying to claim ownership of an image of the corona virus.

Yeah no, fuck off Getty ya two-headed cunt.

Who hurt you?

You can just, you know, ignore it.

You also can say "fucking," no need for that stupid censoring.