- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Chatbot Arena is the most popular AI benchmarking tool, but new research says its scores are misleading and benefit a handful of the biggest companies
by Daniela Tafani May 1, 2025

May 1, 2025

Researchers Say the Most Popular Tool for Grading AIs Unfairly Favors Meta, Google, OpenAI The most popular method for measuring what are the best chatbots in the world is flawed and frequently manipulated by powerful companies like OpenAI and Google in order to make their products seem better than they actually are, according to a new paper from researchers at the AI company Cohere, as well as Stanford, MIT, and other universities. The researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing data that’s made public by Chatbot Arena (also known as LMArena and LMSYS), which facilitates benchmarking and maintains the leaderboard listing the best large language models, as well as scraping Chatbot Arena and their own testing. Chatbot Arena, meanwhile, has responded to the researchers findings by saying that while it accepts some criticisms and plans to address them, some of the numbers the researchers presented are wrong and mischaracterize how Chatbot Arena actually ranks LLMs. The research was published just weeks after Meta was accused of gaming AI benchmarks with one of its recent models. If you’re wondering why this beef between the researchers, Chatbot Arena, and others in the AI industry matters at all, consider the fact that the biggest tech companies in the world as well as a great number of lesser known startups are currently in a fierce competition to develop the most advanced AI tools, operating under the belief that these AI tools will define the future of humanity and enrich the most successful companies in this industry in a way that will make previous technology booms seem minor by comparison. I should note here that Cohere is an AI company that produces its own models and that they don’t appear to rank very highly in the Chatbot Arena leaderboard. The researchers also make the point that proprietary closed models from competing companies appear to have an unfair advantage to open-source models, and that Cohere proudly boasts that its model Aya is “one of the largest open science efforts in ML to date.” In other words, the research is coming from a company that Chatbot Arena doesn’t benefit. Judging which large language model is the best is tricky because different people use different AI models for different purposes and what is the “best” result is often subjective, but the desire to compete and compare these models has made the AI industry default to the practice of benchmarking AI models. Specifically, Chatbot Arena, which gives a numerical “Arena Score” to models companies submit and maintains a leaderboard listing the highest scoring models. At the moment, for example, Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro is in the number one spot, followed by OpenAI’s o3, ChatGPT 4o, and X’s Grok 3. The vast majority of people who use these tools probably have no idea the Chatbot Arena leaderboard exists, but it is a big deal to AI enthusiasts, CEOs, investors, researchers, and anyone who actively works or is invested in the AI industry. The significance of the leaderboard also remains despite the fact that it has been criticized extensively over time for the reasons I list above. The stakes of the AI race and who will win it are objectively very high in terms of the money that’s being poured into this space and the amount of time and energy people are spending on winning it, and Chatbot Arena, while flawed, is one of the few places that’s keeping score. “A meaningful benchmark demonstrates the relative merits of new research ideas over existing ones, and thereby heavily influences research directions, funding decisions, and, ultimately, the shape of progress in our field,” the researchers write in their paper, titled “The Leaderboard illusion.” “The recent meteoric rise of generative AI models—in terms of public attention, commercial adoption, and the scale of compute and funding involved—has substantially increased the stakes and pressure placed on leaderboards.” The way that Chatbot Arena works is that anyone can go to its site and type in a prompt or question. That prompt is then given to two anonymous models. The user can’t see what the models are, but in theory one model could be ChatGPT while the other is Anthropic’s Claude. The user is then presented with the output from each of these models and votes for the one they think did a better job. Multiply this process by millions of votes and that’s how Chatbot Arena determines who is placed where on the leaderboards. Deepseek, the Chinese AI model that rocked the industry when it was released in January, is currently ranked #7 on the leaderboard, and its high score was part of the reason people were so impressed. According to the researchers’ paper, the biggest problem with this method is that Chatbot Arena is allowing the biggest companies in this space, namely Google, Meta, Amazon, and OpenAI, to run “undisclosed private testing” and cherrypick their best model. The researchers said their systemic review of Chatbot Arena involved combining data sources encompassing 2 million “battles,” auditing 42 providers and 243 models between January 2024 and April 2025. “This comprehensive analysis reveals that over an extended period, a handful of preferred providers have been granted disproportionate access to data and testing,” the researchers wrote. “In particular, we identify an undisclosed Chatbot Arena policy that allows a small group of preferred model providers to test many model variants in private before releasing only the best-performing checkpoint.” Basically, the researchers claim that companies test their LLMs on Chatbot Arena to find which models score best, without those tests counting towards their public score. Then they pick the model that scores best for official testing. Chatbot Arena says the researchers’ framing here is misleading. “We designed our policy to prevent model providers from just reporting the highest score they received during testing. We only publish the score for the model they release publicly,” it said on X. “In a single month, we observe as many as 27 models from Meta being tested privately on Chatbot Arena in the lead up to Llama 4 release,” the researchers said. “Notably, we find that Chatbot Arena does not require all submitted models to be made public, and there is no guarantee that the version appearing on the public leaderboard matches the publicly available API.” In early April, when Meta’s model Maverick shot up to the second spot of the leaderboard, users were confused because they didn’t find it that good and better than other models that ranked below it. As Techcrunch noted at the time, that might be because Meta used a slightly different version of the model “optimized for conversationality” on Chatbot Arena than what users had access to. “We helped Meta with pre-release testing for Llama 4, like we have helped many other model providers in the past,” Chatbot Arena said in response to the research paper. “We support open-source development. Our own platform and analysis tools are open source, and we have released millions of open conversations as well. This benefits the whole community.” The researchers also claim that makers or proprietary models, like OpenAI and Google, collect far more data from their testing on Chatbot Arena than fully open-source models, which allows them to better fine tune the model to what Chatbot Arena users want. That last part on its own might be the biggest problem with Chatbot Arena’s leaderboard in the long term, since it incentivizes the people who create AI models to design them in a way that scores well on Chatbot Arena as opposed to what might make them materially better and safer for users in a real world environment. As the researchers write: “the over-reliance on a single leaderboard creates a risk that providers may overfit to the aspects of leaderboard performance, without genuinely advancing the technology in meaningful ways. As Goodhart’s Law states, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Despite their criticism, the researchers acknowledge the contribution of Chatbot Arena to AI research and that it serves a need, and their paper ends with a list of recommendations on how to make it better, including preventing companies from retracting scores after submission, being more transparent which models engage in private testing and how much. “One might disagree with human preferences—they’re subjective—but that’s exactly why they matter,” Chatbot Arena said on X in response to the paper. “Understanding subjective preference is essential to evaluating real-world performance, as these models are used by people. That’s why we’re working on statistical methods—like style and sentiment control—to decompose human preference into its constituent parts. We are also strengthening our user base to include more diversity. And if pre-release testing and data helps models optimize for millions of people’s preferences, that’s a positive thing!” “If a model provider chooses to submit more tests than another model provider, this does not mean the second model provider is treated unfairly,” it added. “Every model provider makes different choices about how to use and value human preferences.” <https://www.404media.co/chatbot-arena-illusion-paper-meta-openai/>

1 0

alfabetizzazione digitale
by alessandro marzocchi April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

Buon pomeriggio. Ho ricevuto queste segnalazioni quale materiale utile per l'alfabetizzazione digitale: https://www.cremit.it/mooc2024/ https://www.cremit.it/unlockit-uno-spazio-per-i-genitori/ https://www.cremit.it/gigi_tale-lamico-grillo/, inserendo nella stringa di ricerca Gigi_tale. si trovano le proposte per i più piccoli Chiedo il vostro aiuto per capire se si basano su sw aperto, libero oppure no. Grazie fin d'ora per le risposte e cordialità. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi)

1 0

composizione musicale
by alessandro marzocchi April 29, 2025

April 29, 2025

E’ in preparazione un concorso internazionale per compositori musicali, dedicato alla “classica” che oggi è altra rispetto alla tradizione. Anche nella composizione musicale si affacciano digitale, AI sui quali non so niente ma che non vorrei trascurare: indicazioni, suggerimenti? Se ricevo buoni consigli proporrò la specializzazione alla giuria. Grazie fin d'ora e cordialità. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi)

1 0

Re: [nexa] American Panopticon
by Federico Guerrini April 29, 2025

April 29, 2025

Cosa succede, quando un governo "democratico" vira verso l'autoritarismo e ha a disposizione un'immensa quantità di dati sui propri cittadini? Probabilmente, nulla di buono. Da The Atlantic: "In March, President Trump issued an executive order aiming to eliminate the data silos that keep everything separate. Historically, much of the data collected by the government had been heavily compartmentalized and secured; even for those legally authorized to see sensitive data, requesting access for use by another government agency is typically a painful process that requires justifying what you need, why you need it, and proving that it is used for those purposes only. Not so under Trump." "Advancements in artificial intelligence promise to turn this unwieldy mass of data and metadata into something easily searchable, politically weaponizable, and maybe even profitable. DOGE is reportedly attempting to build a “master database” of immigrant data to aid in deportations; NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has floated the possibility of an autism registry (though the administration quickly walked it back). America already has all the technology it needs to build a draconian surveillance society—the conditions for such a dystopia have been falling into place slowly over time, waiting for the right authoritarian to come along and use it to crack down on American privacy and freedom." "Trump and DOGE are not just undoing decades of privacy measures. They appear to be ignoring that they were ever written. Over and over, the federal experts we spoke with insisted that the very idea of connecting federal data is anathema." "Musk has said that his goal with DOGE is to serve his country. He says he wants to “end the tyranny of bureaucracy.” But around Washington, people are asking one another what he really wants with all those data. Keys to the federal dataverse could, for example, be extremely useful to a highly ambitious man who is aggressively trying to win the AI race. "We already know that Musk’s people have access to large swaths of information from federal agencies—what we don’t know is what they’ve copied, exfiltrated, or otherwise taken with them. In theory, this material, whether usable together or not, could be recombined with other identifying information from private companies for all kinds of purposes. There has been speculation already that it could be fed into third-party large language models to train them or make the information more usable (Musk’s xAI has its own model, Grok); outside firms could use their own technologies to make sense of disparate sets of data, as well. Such approaches, the federal workers told us, could make it easier to turn previously obfuscated information, such as the individual elements of a tax return, into something to be mined." "The thought that the government would centralize or even give away citizen data for private use is scandalous. But it’s also, in a way, expected. The Vietnam War and Watergate gave Americans reasons to believe that the government can’t be trusted. The Cold War issued a constant, decades-long threat of annihilation and the necessary surveillance to avoid it. The War on Terror extended the logic into the 21st century. Optical, recording, and then computer technologies arose, offering new ways to watch the public. During the 2010s, Edward Snowden’s NSA surveillance leaks took place, and the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica scandal was brewing. By then, the 20th-century assumption that U.S. intelligence agencies were running mind-control experiments, infiltrating and disrupting civil-rights groups, or carrying out surreptitious missions at home like they do abroad had been fully internalized, and fused with the suspicion that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Walmart were—in their own ways—following suit." Buona lettura, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/04/american-panopticon/… F. http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/

2 3

martedì 6 maggio alle ore 11 workshop in line ad oggetto: "La sfida della transizione digitale: il valore dei dati, cybersecurity e intelligenza artificiale"
by Mauro Alovisio April 29, 2025

April 29, 2025

Gent.mi vi segnalo workshop on line gratuito di interesse il prossimo martedì 6 maggio alle ore 11 : *"La sfida della transizione digitale: il valore dei dati, cybersecurity e intelligenza artificiale" che si svolgerà on line il 6 maggio 2025 alle ore 11, *con presentazione della seconda edizione del master on line executive in materia di transizione digitale e compliance della Saa patrocinato dall' Università di Torino > Vi riporto il programma: ore 11:00 > > Saluti istituzionali: Davide Caregnato, Direttore di SAA School of > Management e COREP, Sergio Bianchi, Direttore Confservizi Piemonte e Valle > D’Aosta; Angelo Saccà, Direttore Sistemi Informativi e RTD Università di > Torino > > 11:10 Interventi: *Trasformazione Digitale, Intelligenza Artificiale e > Appalti*, Sergio Foà, Direttore del Master e Professore Ordinario di > Diritto Amministrativo presso Università di Torino > > * Le linee guida sull'Intelligenza Artificiale di Agid, *Giovanni Melardi > – Responsabile Sistemi di gestione, Ufficio Governance strategica e > controllo interno. > > *Cybersecurity e Resilienza,* Mauro Alovisio, Coordinatore del Corso GDPR > dell'Università di Torino e Professore a Contratto; Andrea Marella, Esperto > di Transizione Digitale > > Presentazione della II edizione del Master Executive on line e dei > docenti del corso, > > 11:50 Testimonianze di ex allievi > > *Il Master si rivolge a chi lavora nelle società pubbliche e nelle > società di consulenza del settore pubblico, per consultare programma ed > elenco docenti * https://corep.it/transizione-digitale-2ed.html > > > *Il Master è * finalizzato a fornire strumenti operativi per accompagnare > gli enti e le persone nel complesso percorso della digitalizzazione dei > processi nel contesto europeo e nazionale e indicare gli obiettivi di > performance dei dirigenti. > > > *Per partecipare al workshop è necessario registrarsi al seguente form > <https://corep.musvc3.net/e/tr?q=3%3dDfGZ0%26I%3dF%26D%3d7fJV%26u%3dXFZAeF%2…>.* > > > > Il Master tratterà *le* *sfide della digitalizzazione*, del nuovo *codice > degli appalti*, *l’impatto degli attacchi informatici agli enti e società > pubbliche*, che richiedono un costante aggiornamento e training dei > dirigenti, dei responsabili della transizione digitale. > > *Il master è totalmente on line.* > > > > E' in corso la richiesta di *accreditamento* da parte del *Consiglio > Nazionale Forense* > > > > *DESTINATARI: *figure professionali in Società pubbliche e private o > professionisti quali *Avvocati e Commercialisti*, in particolare: > > - RTD (Responsabili Transizione digitale) > - RPCT (Responsabile Prevenzione Corruzione e Trasparenza) > - DPO (Data Protection Officer) > - RESPONSABILE PRIVACY > - RESPONSABILI ICT > - RESPONSABILI UFFICI RISK E COMPLIANCE > - RESPONSABILI UFFICI LEGALI > - DIRIGENTI > > *PERIODO: *il Master inizierà il* 10 Ottobre 2025 *e terminerà a* Febbraio > 2026.* > > > > *FREQUENZA: *il Master si sviluppa in* 29 mezze giornate di 3 ore per un > totale di 87 ore.* > > Le lezioni si svolgeranno *il martedì e il venerdì pomeriggio con orario > 14:30-17:30*. > > > > *COSTO: *La quota di partecipazione al master è pari a *1.480,00 €* + > IVA da pagarsi in 2 rate. > > > > *DIREZIONE DEL MASTER:* Prof. Sergio Foà, coordinatore scientifico Avv. > Mauro Alovisio. > > > > *SCADENZA ISCRIZIONI: 22 settembre 2025**.* > Grazie per l'attenzione >> >> Un caro saluto >> >> Mauro Alovisio >> >> 3333597588 > >> >>

1 0

COURSE PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME AVAILABLE NOW - 63rd ISODARCO Course - Aug. 6-13, 2025 - Volterra (IT)
by diego latella April 28, 2025

April 28, 2025

Dear All, The Preliminary Programme of the 63rd ISODARCO Course is now available at https://www.isodarco.it/63rd-isodarco-course/preliminary-detailed-program/ *Applications for participation should be made by Monday, June 9^th , 2025.* More information, including the electronic application form, is available at https://www.isodarco.it/63rd-isodarco-course The course will focus on **Peace and Stability in the Age of Militarized AI and Cyber-conflicts: New Challenges and Risks** Military powers actively incorporate advanced computing technologies into their defense systems, from artificial intelligence (AI) warfare applications to increasingly automated cyber defenses. The 2025 ISODARCO Summer Course focuses on new risks for peace and stability and related challenges for international governance that arise from the expanding militarization of advanced computing technologies. Within the vast landscape of computing technologies and their military applications, special attention will be devoted to AI decision-support systems for command and control, autonomous weapons systems and their technological precursors, nuclear command and control with its cyber vulnerabilities, the escalation of cyber hostilities and the related risk of spillover to other warfare domains, the accelerated pace of AI-powered warfare and the related challenge of preserving human control over battlefield operations. Internationally recognized scholars will address geopolitical, diplomatic, legal, and ethical implications of risks and challenges posed by militarized AI and cyber warfare in connection with nuclear stability and non-proliferation, regional conflicts, the laws of armed conflict, and international cooperation on arms control and disarmament. Introductory lectures will provide non-specialists with scientific, technological, and socioeconomic background information, making this summer course self-contained and accessible to participants from various educational experiences and academic qualifications. D. Latella -- Dott. Diego Latella - Formerly Senior Researcher with CNR/ISTI - Now retired -- Dott. Diego Latella - Formerly Senior Researcher with CNR/ISTI - Now retired

1 0

Podcast Thomas Le Bonniec su DeepSeek e lavoratori dei dati cinesi
by Antonio Casilli April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Car* tutt*, Thomas Le Bonniec (che è stato visiting scholar al Nexa l'anno scorso) ha rilasciato una intervista in italiano alla trasmissione StakkaStakka: https://diplab.eu/podcast-interview-with-thomas-le-bonniec-italian-autonomo… L'intervista riguarda il nostro policy memo "The Human Cost of DeepSeek", che trovate disponibile da scaricare a questo URL: https://diplab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/THE-HUMAN-COST-OF-DEEPSEEK.pdf Un buon ascolto e buon weekend à tutta la lista, ---a -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris My new book: Waiting for Robots. The Hired Hands of Automation, University of Chicago Press, 2025. My new documentary: In the Belly of AI, Federation Studios, 2025. *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for the timing of this email. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not required.*

1 0

Extended Deadline for INDL-8 “Contesting Digital Labor”
by Antonio Casilli April 26, 2025

April 26, 2025

Dear all, We have extended the abstract submission deadline to * May 5, 2025 * for the 8th annual International Network on Digital Labor conference to accommodate the diverse academic calendars of our international participants. See here: https://www.indl.network/indl-8/ We look forward to receiving your proposals! === Call for Papers INDL-8 "Contesting Digital Labor: Resistance, counter-uses, and new directions for research" Bologna, Italy, 10-12 September, 2025 [ Submission deadline extended until May 5, 2025 ] The International Digital Labor Network (INDL) is pleased to announce its eighth annual conference, which will be held at the University of Bologna, Italy, on September 10-12, 2025. INDL conferences provide a unique opportunity to share knowledge and new perspectives in research and practice related to digital labor. Broadly understood, the scope of this concept encompasses unpaid work on social media, paid work mediated by digital platforms (both location-based and online), formal employment in technology industries, and even traditional occupations that have undergone processes of digitization, platformization, and intensive use of big data and artificial intelligence. Each year, the organizers of the conference propose an overarching theme on which to particularly encourage submissions, as a way to reflect the rich diversity of views on this multifaceted object, to consolidate existing knowledge, and to highlight new ways forward. The theme of this year, “Contesting digital labor,” builds on the observation that the recent rise of digital labor parallels an unprecedented surge of forms of individual and collective resistance in multiple geographies and settings. The strikes of delivery riders in Latin America, the unionization of content moderators in Africa, the organization of data workers and social media influencers in Europe, accompany emerging and more informal initiatives of mutualism and solidarity as well as everyday acts of individual resistance. Digital labor is becoming a key site of contestation for the future of work and of technological development. The conference aims to explore a fundamental contradiction of digital labor. On the one hand, algorithms and digital technologies shape a new labor regime characterized by data extraction, widespread surveillance, and strict control on workers, which result in the fragmentation, individualization and casualization of jobs. On the other hand, digital labor also brings about an unexpected resurgence of labor conflicts. Most protests have been worker-led or initiated by grassroots organizations, while traditional trade unions have taken a leading role in some cases. Informal, sometimes individual actions of resistance have become increasingly common, in addition to formal, collective mobilizations. Some interventions have involved counter-uses of digital means in the workplace, for example through the creation of apps, tools, and software with the explicit aim of enabling workers to understand and reformulate their working conditions. In this perspective, digital affordances are open to interpretations, uses and practices that not only escape platforms’ surveillance but also establish social relationships other than those of labor exploitation, thereby undermining the efficacy of platforms’ power. This evidence suggests that digital platforms may not have an exclusive power to shape the digital age, and that workers, individually and collectively, can radically transform the trajectories of technological development. Uncovering the richness of collective and individual contestation practices that are emerging at the core of platform capitalism is essential to grasp the recent transformations of labor and the broader tendencies that are reshaping the digital age. This means looking at workers’ struggles not only as an object of research, but also as a crucial moment in which new knowledge is produced. Contestations reveal the reasons of workers’ grievances, grounded in their daily experiences, identities, skills, and aspirations. They bring to light aspects of labor organization and power asymmetries that would otherwise remain invisible, thereby potentially challenging the narratives of platforms. They allow comparing and contrasting the viewpoints of workers to those of intermediaries and clients, bringing more voices into the debate. Valuing this knowledge is a key goal of INDL-8 and an essential step to understand the current challenges and future perspectives of digital labor. This conference seeks to examine how platform workers navigate, challenge, and reshape algorithmic management systems while forging innovative forms of solidarity and collective action. It also aims to reflect on the perspectives that technological developments open for workers in order to escape everyday surveillance, to resist top-down control and to organize to defend their rights. For this purpose, this year’s INDL-8 conference invites submissions along four “Current topics” that explore these issues: Emerging forms of individual and collective action in digitally mediated work Workers’ resistance to algorithms Technology as a tool for worker organizing and collective action Legal frameworks, regulatory initiatives, and institutional responses Four more “Legacy topics” have been introduced, focusing on subjects that previously garnered substantial interest from conference presenters: Algorithmic management and labor control Platform cooperativism and alternative business models Platformisation and precariousness Gender and digital labor We also welcome submissions for a “Starting Topics” series, focusing on three emerging and currently under-researched areas that have the potential to drive meaningful progress in the field: the psycho-social and health-related risks of platform work the environmental challenges appertaining to digital labor the experiences, identities, purposes and viewpoints of the other “side” of the platforms, composed by clients and employers. We invite contributions from both confirmed and more junior academic researchers (also including PhD students), and from all professionals involved in the study of these themes, also including labor organizers and other practitioners. All disciplines involved in the study of labor and/or technology are welcome, for example economics, management, political science, law, sociology, psychology, history, geography, science & technology (STS) studies, media studies, design, and computer science. Submit your proposal Submission Guidelines: To submit, please click on the button above or visit: https://indl-8.sciencesconf.org/ Abstracts should: Have a maximum length of 400 words Be written in English Be submitted through the conference management system SciencesConf Please remember to specify: Your name and affiliation Title Abstract (including research objective, methodology, main findings and/or theoretical development, and where relevant, contribution to understanding worker organizing and resistance in digital labor) Through a drop-down menu, you will be asked to choose from among one of the 11 topics mentioned above (the four Current, the four Legacy, and the three Starting). You have the option to add a comment or a supporting file if needed. Abstract submission deadline: April 27, 2025. Submissions extended until May 5, 2025 Notification of acceptance: June 4, 2025 This edition of the INDL-8 conference is organized through a collaborative partnership between the University of Bologna, Fondazione Di Vittorio, DiPLab, and the International Labor Organization (ILO). -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris My new book: Waiting for Robots. The Hired Hands of Automation, University of Chicago Press, 2025. My new documentary: In the Belly of AI, Federation Studios, 2025. *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for the timing of this email. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not required.*

1 0

Programma GIG-ARTS Conference su Sovranità Digitale 26-28 maggio Salerno
by Mauro SANTANIELLO April 25, 2025

April 25, 2025

Gentili Colleghi, Siamo lieti di annunciare che il programma della 9ª edizione di GIG-ARTS è ora disponibile online. La conferenza di quest’anno, intitolata «The Rise of Digital Sovereignty: Ambiguities and Challenges», proporrà dieci sessioni di panel, 38 presentazioni di paper, due keynote speech e una tavola rotonda per riflettere sulle narrazioni, le pratiche e le implicazioni della sovranità digitale in diversi contesti regionali e settoriali. L’evento si svolgerà presso l’Università di Salerno dal 26 al 28 maggio 2025. Potete consultare il programma completo qui: https://gig-arts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Programme-GIG-ARTS-2025.pdf Le iscrizioni sono aperte fino al 15 maggio 2025. Ulteriori informazioni sulla conferenza: https://gig-arts.eu/ Speriamo di vedervi a maggio a Salerno! Prof. Mauro Santaniello (PhD) Associate Professor in Political Science ICPC <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/> Director| GIG-ARTS <https://gig-arts.eu/> Coordinator| Giganet <https://www.giga-net.org/> Secretary SWING <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/swing-2025> Scientific Coordinator | UNU-CRIS <https://cris.unu.edu/people> Associate Research Fellow PRIN on Digital Sovereignty <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/internet-and-communication-policy-cen…> Principal Investigator Latest publications <https://docenti.unisa.it/023694/ricerca/pubblicazioni>

1 0

Re: [nexa] urgente: pareri e consigli su richiesta copytrack
by Marco Fioretti April 24, 2025

April 24, 2025

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 14:01:14 PM +0200, alessandro marzocchi wrote: > Ciao Marco, sono in pensione da tempo cercando di dimenticare il più possibile > delle mie esperienze giuridiche. > Risponderei come hai ipotizzato, senza indicare l'importo che intenderesti > pagare. > Scriverei disconoscendo danni e tua responsabilità, aggiungendo che sei > disposto ad un pagamento esclusivamente per evitare azioni e/o richieste > ulteriori e chiedendo loro di indicare l'importo. > Cordialmente, > Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) Buonasera Duccio, e lista, grazie per il consiglio, solo una domanda: se ho capito bene, ritieni quindi che, oltre a disconoscere danni all'autore della foto e responsabilita', non sia opportuno/necessario dire subito esplicitamente che anche nell'eventualita' remotissima che profitto ci fosse stato, sarebbe praticamente nullo, dell'ordine delle **frazioni** di Euro? Grazie ancora, anche in anticipo a tutti coloro che vorranno intervenire. Marco > Il giorno mar 22 apr 2025 alle ore 21:12 <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > ha scritto: > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:10:10 +0000 > From: "Marco Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Subject: [nexa] urgente: pareri e consigli su richiesta copytrack > Message-ID: <639ec84828873129a57ee9c4b9939695e1df4265(a)nexaima.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Salve a tutti, > > ho appena ricevuto la richiesta parzialmente copiata qui sotto, di pagare > 350 euro per una immagine che avrei inserito illegalmente in un post del > mio blog 5 anni fa. > > Dico "avrei" perche' ovviamente non ricordo assolutamente i dettagli della > cosa, ma 99,999... volte su 100 le immagini su quel blog sono screenshot a > bassa risoluzione di PARTI di immagini. L'unica cosa di cui sono > assolutamente sicuro e' che comunque stiano le cose aver usato > quell'immagine non mi ha fruttato piu' di 1 Euro in totale, a essere > proprio generosi. > > Inoltre, vedo online diversi "avvisi" che la compagnia in questione adotta > pratiche quantomeno discutibili: > > https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2024/10/11/ > from-interview-series-to-legal-battle-yay-images-and-copytrack-come-after-the-brutally-honest-blog > / > > https://kanzlei-franz.com/copytrack-scam-or-legitimate/ > > ma non mi e' chiaro quanto quelle considerazioni valgano per sito gestito > dall'Italia su hosting tedesco. > > A parte questo, che fare? Sul principio della cosa non ho nulla da > obiettare, ma modi e importo mi lasciano basito. > > Quanto spazio ho per rispondergli "sul principio sono d'accordo, se davvero > risulta che ho sbagliato, ma quella somma scordatevela, facciamo 10 Euro e > pace"? E come? > > Grazie in anticipo per qualsiasi aiuto. > > Marco > > L'email che ho ricevuto: > > Sent via email to XXXXXXXXXXXX on April 22, 2025 > Authorization request / Unauthorized image use - Case no: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx > Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXx > We, COPYTRACK, are writing to you on behalf of our client XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, > who > has assigned us the monitoring and protection of their licenses and image > rights. On April 17, 2025 we have been informed that XXXXXXXXXXXx is > likely > using an image without permission and the client has exclusively > commissioned > us with the clarification, administration of the image rights for the > territory > of the Federal Republic of Germany and, if necessary, the enforcement of > any > copyright infringement through our partner lawyers. Images are protected > by > copyright law almost worldwide and infringements are actionable under the > respective national law. Please see the attachment below for details. > On behalf of our client, we must first determine if you have a valid > license to > use the images in question in the territory of the Federal Republic of > Germany. > If you have a valid license or any other legal justification to use these > images, please reply to this email and include proof of license purchase > and/or > any other necessary information to validate the usage. > > Please note that you are obliged to provide the necessary information > about the > usage of the image to allow our client and us to verify the lawfulness of > such > usage. > > Please respond to this letter no later than May 2, 2025. > > If this is not the case, your use of the image material most likely > constitutes > a copyright infringement within the territory of the Federal Republic of > Germany. If no settlement can be reached, we as Copytrack are directly > instructed to enforce these rights for the territory in the Federal > Republic of > Germany through our German partner lawyers and, in addition, to instruct > our > respective partner lawyers in other countries to examine and, if > necessary, > enforce the infringement of the rights in the respective countries. You > could > then be legally obligated to compensate our client for the damage caused > by > this copyright infringement. > Rights XXXXXXXXXXXXx > holder > Image found on: URL OF POST > Online 2020 > Since > > 3 steps to solving your case > > In order to resolve this case amicably with you, we request your > cooperation. > Please complete the following steps to close this case: > > 1. Check > Review the evidence on this case by going to https:// > portal.copytrack.com https://portal.copytrack.com/ > and entering CASE ID XXXXXXXXXXXX > 2. Proof > Show us proof of your license by uploading it or providing any other > legal > justification to use these images and if it is valid, we will close > your > case immediately; > > If you do not have a valid license or any other valid justification: > > 3. Compensation / License > You now have the following 2 options: > Option 1: Purchase of a subsequent image license (includes past and > future use for one year after purchase). > Option 2: Compensation (includes the previous use and requires the > immediate deletion of the image). > > Image license (valid for 1 year from date of purchase) 389.59 € > Compensation costs (past usage) 350.00 € > Payment is due by May 21, 2025 > > Payments for both options can be made securely online at https:// > portal.copytrack.com by entering CASE ID XXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > We accept PayPal, credit card and bank transfer. > > We calculate these fees based on our client's license history, as well as > the > duration of use and type of rights infringement. Failure to provide a > proof or > pay for a valid license may result in your case being referred to our > partner > attorney and significantly higher additional fees. > > To avoid further action, including legal action, provide proof of a valid > license or any other relevant information by May 2, 2025, or acquire it by > making payment in our online portal. >

1 0