To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article focuses on copyright issues pertaining to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with particular emphasis on the ChatGPT case study as a primary exemplar. In order to generate high-quality outcomes, generative AI systems require substantial quantities of training data, which may frequently comprise copyright-protected information. This prompts inquiries into the legal principles of fair use, the creation of derivative works and the lawfulness of data gathering and utilisation. The utilisation of input data for the purpose of training and enhancing AI models presents significant concerns regarding potential violations of copyright. This paper offers suggestions for safeguarding the interests of copyright holders and competitors, while simultaneously addressing legal challenges and expediting the advancement of AI technologies. This study analyses the ChatGPT platform as a case example to explore the necessary modifications that copyright regulations must undergo to adequately tackle the intricacies of authorship and ownership in the realm of AI-generated creative content.
The present paper refers to research conducted in the tectonic-karst depression of Campo Felice in the central Apennines (Italy), in which glacial, alluvial and lacustrine sediments have been preserved. Stratigraphic interpretations of sediments underlying the Campo Felice Plain are based on evidence obtained from nine continuous-core boreholes. The boreholes reach a depth of 120 m and provide evidence of five sedimentation cycles separated by erosion surfaces. Each cycle is interpreted as an initial response to a mainly warm stage, characterized by low-energy alluvial and colluvial deposition, pedogenesis, and limited episodes of marsh formation. In turn, a mainly cold stage follows during which a lake formed, and glaciers developed and expanded, leading to deposition of glacial and fluvioglacial deposits. The chronological framework is established by eleven accelerator mass spectrometer 14C ages and three 39Ar–40Ar ages on leucites from interbedded tephra layers. These age determinations indicate five glacial advances that respectively occurred during marine oxygen isotope stages 2, 3–4, 6, 10 and 14.
The aim of this paper is to recognize and discuss the inherent risks associated with Internet regulation and control over digital content. The key point of this analysis is that Internet regulation can present human rights risks. In particular, the paper examines how restrictions over Internet content are posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. It also considers the relevance and impact of computer–mediated communication, its potential on democratization of freedom of expression and the problem of conflicting rights. Drawing upon comparative and case study material, the paper finally discusses and investigates the potential risks and vulnerabilities related to communication technologies focusing on legislative reforms in the area of digital communications and their implications for fundamental freedoms.
The purpose of the paper is to discuss how to regulate the access to and use of biochemical and human genetic material currently considered as part of the market framework. Looking beyond the protection of traditional public goods (such as land or water), the paper emphasizes the debate around the progressive commodification of human genetic resources facilitated by an improper use of intellectual property rights. The discourse around commons is used to evaluate alternative tools and strategies to the issue of private appropriation of human genetic resources and natural compounds
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.