I am still torn on this issue. On the one hand, it feels like a copyright violation when other people's works are used to train an ML model. On the other hand, it is not a copyright infringement if I paint a picture in the Studio Ghibli style myself. The question is whether removing a ‘skill requirement’ for replication is sufficient grounds to determine a violation.

> On July 7, the company dismissed the lawsuit against McNally instead.

> Proven also made a highly unusual request: Would the judge please seal almost the entire court record—including the request to seal?

Tough at first then running away with the tail between their legs. Typical bullying behavior.

> but Proven complained about a “pattern of intimidation and harassment by individuals influenced by Defendant McNally’s content.”

They have to know it's generated by their own lawsuit and how they approached it, right? They can't be that oblivious to turn around and say "Judge, look at all the craziness this generated, we just have to seal the records!". It's like an ice-cream cone that licks itself.

> the case became a classic example of the Streisand Effect, in which the attempt to censor information can instead call attention to it.

A constant reminder to keep the people who don't know what they are doing (including the owners of the company!) from the social media.

Why?

I can't wait to read the article detailing how horribly this went in a few months from now.