10 years ago I would’ve agreed that this kind of watermark was inappropriate. But seeing how much of our federal legal system has become a joke, up to and including the Supreme Court, decorum isn’t high on my priority list anymore
Don’t watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits - Ars Technica
Submitted 3 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
wildtamaskan@pawb.social 3 days ago
taladar@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Agreed, the US Supreme Court is entirely responsible if they receive more ridicule than respect these days.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Watermark aside.
What the hell is up with that script like font choice!!
baines@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
agreed this one is far better
tal@lemmy.today 3 days ago
“Each page of plaintiff’s complaint appears on an e-filing which is dominated by a large multi-colored cartoon dragon dressed in a suit,” he wrote on April 28 (PDF). “Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon.”
The Court is not a cartoon.
They’re portraying themselves as a scalie, not you.
That being said, why is anyone involved here watermarking PDF with anything? I mean, normally the purpose of a watermark is to link content with the creator. But I seriously doubt that the text and the background image have been merged into some kind of raster image.
investigates
Yeah, they link to the original dragonized PDF.
…courtlistener.com/…/gov.uscourts.miwd.114988.1.0…
It’s just text on top of the image. You can copy-paste the text:
DRAGON LAWYERS PC
Jacob A. Perrone (P71915)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
325 East Grand River Ave., Suite 250
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: (844) JAKELAW
jacob.perrone@yahoo.comIt’s like having a screensaver on an LCD monitor.
And
pdftotext, inpoppler-utils, looks like it makes a pretty decent txt file of it too.Bezier@suppo.fi 3 days ago
It’s like having a screensaver on an LCD monitor.
But screensavers are fun!
Incogni@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The Court is not a cartoon.
They’re portraying themselves as a scalie, not you.
I think they meant this like “This court is not a cartoon, so keep your cartoon character out of it” - cartoon as in the medium, not the character.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Fine, I’ll wear my fursuit for the trial instead then
SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It’s not about anyone being a scalie, it’s a cross between “I’m supposed to be reading the text here, take this seriously” and “modernity means we don’t use powdered wigs anymore”
Glitchvid@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I gotta admit this got a chuckle out of me, I’d allow it.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I’m genuinely surprised that corporations haven’t started sponsoring defendants through watermarking their company logos on legal briefings.
terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Thx, they will now…
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Your honor, before we get to the proceedings, I would like to take a moment and thank our sponsor SQUARESPACE!
taladar@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
So certain lawsuits won’t be possible anymore because advertisers don’t like to be associated with that kind of content?
sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 2 days ago
Motion for summary dismissal, brought to you by Mountain Dew
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 days ago
This jury packed with EXTREME FLAVOR courtesy of Doritos new Late Nite Taco!
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 days ago
It’s either a logo on the legal documents, or the lawyers come to court in dragon fursuits. No compromises. 😤
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
do watermark your legal pdfs with purple dragons in suits
reddig33@lemmy.world 2 days ago
How else am I supposed to waste color toner so I can overbill my clients?
brsrklf@jlai.lu 3 days ago
Please keep your weird stuff private, furries/scalies.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If you think that is weird, you must be celibate or something, lol.
brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 days ago
If you don’t think it’s weird to draw funny cartoon animals on official documents, and somewhat attempt to guess people’s marital situation out of nowhere when they don’t, you might be a bit weird.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 days ago
It is we had given the context
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
While I do agree with the sentiment, I don’t agree that this qualifies as weird.
pulido@lemmings.world 2 days ago
I honestly think it’s pretty funny.
I like these guys.
Kaelygon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
phew, I dodged this one. My logo is just a purple dragon with no suit
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I would not mind if they toned it down to what other people do for a watermark. As in: if you really look for it, it is noticeable, but it does not obstruct actual contents, or makes it harder to read.
And if they don’t want it to be copied or scanned, just drop in a few Eurions.
HyperfocusSurfer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Is it just me, or it kinda sounds like they don’t want to prococess a complaint? A warning not to do that again would be enough, IMO, given it seems like there are no rules prohibiting this.
dzso@lemmy.world 3 days ago
My first reaction was “who give a fuck?” then I got to the part of the article that says:
Which is honestly a thousand times more concerning than how he chooses to display his silly logo. Dude is writing legal documents with AI. At least his lack of professionalism is obvious.
angelmountain@feddit.nl 3 days ago
Pretty sure all law firms do that nowadays. And they are quite stupid if they don’t. As long as they check the output…
echodot@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Then why don’t I just get the AI to write my legal filings and skip the lawyer fees?
The whole reason that I would retain professional help rather than just use an AI system is because the AI system makes stuff up, if the professional is just going to use the AI then what’s the point?
The problem with all of these types is they always say “oh well as long as you check its work it’s okay”, aka vibe<insert previously intellectually demanding task here>. The problem with that is firstly if you have to check its work then you’re basically just replacing one boring task with a different boring task, but you haven’t actually saved any time, and the second problem is a lot of the time people don’t actually check its work thoroughly, so mistakes still get through. Which is why using AI in a professional sense is a problem.
It’s fine to use it for summarising the minutes of a meeting, but it just isn’t good enough and reliable enough yet to be used in high-stakes situations. It is utterly irresponsible therefore to attempt to use it like that.
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 days ago
I would imagine they’d be stupid if they did use AI. I’ve seen people use AI to “write” technical documentation that I have had to review. That shit goes straight into the bin because the time I spend fixing all the AI nonsense is about the same amount of time it would take for me to write the document myself. It’s gotten to a point where I straight up reject all AI generated documentation because I know fixing them is a waste of time.
I imagine legal documents have to be at least as precise as technical documents, so if they’re checking the output I seriously doubt they’re saving any time or money by using AI.
dzso@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Pretty sure I’m not gonna hire you to do any professional work for me.
anachrohack@lemmy.world 2 days ago
They were copy pasting most of the boilerplate before