Clara Mae Gregory

---

When in doubt, check it out.

Copyright and AI

Written 2026-06-15

Under U.S. copyright law, works generated entirely by Artificial Intelligence are not copyright-exempt—they are not eligible for copyright protection at all.The legal realities of AI and copyright depend on whether you are talking about the outputs generated by AI or the sources used to train AI models:

1.
AI-Generated Outputs (What you create)Human Authorship Requirement: The U.S. Copyright Office mandates that copyright protection only applies to works created by human authors. Content produced solely by a machine with no significant human creative input cannot be copyrighted and essentially falls into the public domain.

Mixed Works: If you use AI to generate a rough draft or base image, but add substantial human creative input—such as complex human-authored edits, arrangements, or combinations with human-made material—those specific human-contributed elements can be copyrighted.

Liability: If the output generated by the AI tool infringes on an existing copyright, the business or individual utilizing the tool can be held legally liable.

2.
AI Training Sources (What the AI uses)

Fair Use Debate: Tech companies argue that using copyrighted works as data to train AI models falls under "fair use" (similar to how a search engine indexes pages).

Ongoing Litigation: Many human creators and publishers dispute this, arguing that ingesting millions of copyrighted works without permission or compensation is an infringement. The legality of this practice is currently being decided in various courts. Those using AI tools to create business materials, blog posts, or creative works, should understand that this legal landscape is critical. AI can help you check if in doubt. Provide the AI assistant with the information in question such as specific type of content you are producing (e.g., text, code, images) and what tools you are using can provide more tailored guidance or help identify what requires additional human editing to protect your rights.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/


Save as a bookmark (requires login)
Write a comment (requires login)
Send as email
Print text


I think I prefer legitimate news instead of some peep's wag-the-dog rants, distractive to the real issues plaguing society, especially American Society, rampant in today's world

Breaking News

Written 2026-06-15

[Source AI Overview News]

The United States and Iran have reached a peace deal to end their recent conflict, brokered by Pakistan. The initial memorandum of understanding outlines a mutual end to military hostilities, a 60-day window for further nuclear negotiations, and reciprocal steps on sanctions and waterways.
▪︎CNBC

Core Terms of the Agreement:
Strait of Hormuz: The United States agreed to end its naval blockade, and Iran has committed to immediately reopen the vital waterway to commercial shipping.
▪︎NewsNation

Frozen Assets: The U.S. will release $25 billion in restricted Iranian assets, contingent upon the progression of the technical nuclear negotiations.
▪︎The Hill

Nuclear Program: Iran has committed indefinitely to neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons, and both sides are to maintain the nuclear status quo while negotiating a final, dismantlement-focused agreement.
▪︎Reuters

Sanctions Relief: The U.S. agreed to refrain from imposing new sanctions and to issue Treasury Department waivers permitting the export of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals.
▪︎The Hill

Hostilities: A full ceasefire is being implemented, terminating military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
▪︎CNBC

Full text and official sign-offs are slated for an upcoming ceremony in Switzerland. Details on the agreement and the ongoing negotiations can be tracked via CNBC and Reuters.

As for the ludicrous and idiotic chicken little sky -is-falling rants puked by propagandists that convince ignorant peeps to believe Trump is a madman about to doom the world with nuclear war-- get a life and stop believing all the propaganda crap you choose to fill your insignificant pea brains with.

Donald Trump has frequently stated that nuclear weapons should "never be allowed to be used by anybody".

Trump's Statements and Public Positions:

Conflict Context: Addressing a question regarding the war with Iran, Trump stated that there is no need to resort to nuclear capabilities because the U.S. has conventionally "decimated" adversaries. He reiterated that nuclear weapons should "never be used by anyone".

Global Stance: During discussions regarding conflicts like the Iran war, he asserted that he would not use a nuclear bomb and questioned why anyone would. He has also previously argued that if such weapons are deployed, "the world might literally come to an end".

Official Military Doctrine: Despite his public rhetoric, official U.S. nuclear posture has historically stopped short of a strict, unilateral "no-first-use" policy. Previous reviews have maintained ambiguity, keeping the threat of a nuclear response on the table in extreme circumstances to protect U.S. and allied interests.

Tracking and Verification:To see how these positions compare to historical and current U.S. strategic doctrines, review the Union of Concerned Scientists for a breakdown of historical first-strike policies, or visit the Council on Foreign Relations for details on launch authority and global nuclear taboos.

The Trump administration officially rejects a "no first use" pledge and maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, as have all past administrations. The doctrine explicitly leaves open the option for nuclear use to deter and respond to extreme, non-nuclear strategic threats, including massive cyberattacks or biological and chemical warfare.The administration's stance and nuclear policy framework are defined by several key elements:

Strategic Ambiguity: The U.S. intentionally maintains a flexible first-use policy. By not ruling out first use, the doctrine forces adversaries to account for the possibility of a nuclear response, even when initiating non-nuclear, conventional, or asymmetric aggression.

Expanded Definition of Extreme Circumstances: The administration's foundational nuclear policy—rooted in the foundational Nuclear Posture Review—states that nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear threats, but also a range of "significant non-nuclear strategic attacks".

Rejection of Sole Purpose or No First Use: The administration firmly declines to adopt a "sole purpose" doctrine (which restricts nuclear weapons solely to deterring nuclear attacks), arguing that this would weaken the deterrent value of the nuclear umbrella and potentially embolden adversaries. For a detailed analysis of the administration's strategic goals, review the Arms Control Association policy analysis or read the full War on the Rocks overview on declaratory policy.

ALL OF THE PAST administrations HELD THIS SAME POLICY.

U.S. administrations historically reject a "no first use" (NFU) pledge to maintain "calculated ambiguity," an approach also known as strategic ambiguity. This declaratory policy deliberately avoids specifying the exact conditions under which the U.S. might employ nuclear weapons.

Key Reasons for Deliberate Ambiguity:

Enhanced Deterrence: By refusing to rule out nuclear first use, the U.S. complicates an adversary's decision-making calculus. Foes must factor in the catastrophic risk of a nuclear response even in a non-nuclear, conventional conflict.

Allied Assurance: A "no first use" pledge could erode the confidence of U.S. allies. The extended nuclear deterrence umbrella is viewed by many partner nations as crucial for their security against conventional or non-nuclear strategic threats.

Strategic Flexibility: Calculated ambiguity preserves presidential options and flexibility during crises and conflicts, ensuring the U.S. does not unintentionally signal that conventional aggression comes without ultimate risks.Throughout successive National Posture Reviews, including those from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, the U.S. has maintained that it will only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in "extreme circumstances" to defend the vital interests of the U.S. and its allies. For further reading on official U.S. nuclear posture, consult the Congressional Research Service report on extended deterrence. No-First Use of Nuclear Weapons: A Policy Assessment - IDADec 22, 2020 — * Introduction. As a matter of national policy for over fifty years, the United States has maintained calculated ambiguity as to t...Institute for Defense Analyses | IDAFull article: The Trump Administration’s Nuclear Posture ReviewOct 19, 2018 — The issue was debated in academic circles, allies expressed their views, and the National Security Council also discussed the argu...Taylor & Francis OnlineDangers of a Nuclear No First Use PolicyApr 1, 2019 — In the many decades that U.S. nuclear forces have deterred adversaries and assured allies and partners, the U.S. has never adopted...U.S. Department of War (.gov)

To the idiots out there suffering from politically charged delusional fabrications, the lies created by your own mind's making: These are the facts.Your "facts" are not facts-- just TDS rants from those that are proving to be mentally unstable with reality.

But based on past behaviors, it is not hard to predict what can go wrong. What may go wrong? The rogue, dark forces may try to circumvent this peace resolution and productive negotiation by using some form of sneaky sabotage and Israel would likely retaliate. They can't afford the cost of relunctancy by not responding. Nor do they want to be the aggressor, either. The sane people on both sides want this hateful, crazy fanaticism stopped. The most obvious way would be to end the supply of missiles and any other weapons of war.

A fantasy easier said than done when money and power are entwined.

Learn to love. Any differences, right or wrong should never lead to resolutions paid in bloodshed.

Evil is evil and it does not play fair, nor does it fight fair.

It plays a dirty game using the foolish pawns at their regime's disposal. Our lives do not matter to them and have never mattered to these evil schemers from both sides.

Sponsored terrorism is a serious problem relative to the immediate conflict occurring with Iran.
Deep inside southern Lebanon, the IDF continues uncovering Hezbollah tunnels filled with equipment, weapons, maps, and plans for attacks against Israeli communities.

As questions remain about Iran and the future of the conflict, fighting against Hezbollah continues on Israel’s northern border. It's very convoluted and complicated.

#Israel #Hezbollah #Lebanon #BreakingNews #MiddleEast

Save as a bookmark (requires login)
Write a comment (requires login)
Send as email
Print text



Pages: « First 1 2 3 Last »

There are 3 pages, you stand on page 3