Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 415 posts

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#31

Post by kevingadd »

tylergetsay wrote: post #21

If a TV show generates a script using AI in which animated characters read using AI voices... would I be allowed to then distribute/remix the portion of that episode? What does the distinction requirement actually do besides serve as a notice, is there some kind of diminished rights?

In this case they're saying they wouldn't register it, you could still try to take someone to court for copyright infringement. But you'd be rolling the dice since "the copyright office says it's unfit for registration" is probably a pretty convincing defense to the average judge.

It wouldn't be the first time there was an argument over whether a work was copyrightable or who had the rights, though - for example the Monkey Selfie case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#32

Post by kube-system »

karmasimida wrote: post #27
kube-system wrote: post #8

This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. But it doesn’t answer any tough questions either, like: if an AI model outputs something very close to a training input, does the result infringe on the copyrights of the input work?

This article talks about what is copyrightable. Your question is about infringement of already copyrighted material.

Yes, I understand it was out of the scope of this article. I’m just saying, these are the easier questions to answer.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#33

Post by kevingadd »

eloop wrote: post #26

So if movies use AI to help create characters they won't be able to claim copyright? I expect Hollywood studios will have something to say about this. With AI already being deeply integrated into DCC tools this stance isn't going to last long. And how will it be enforced if the artists don't show how they made the art?

There's still a ton of human expression in the average movie, so they're pretty safe. If they edged towards being fully AI though I could see your concern coming true.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#34

Post by markive »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…

Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera. Basically you instructed it to capture when it determined movement and the camera determined how those instructions are implemented in its output.

Also look at all the post processing and AI that goes into smartphone cameras right now. The human element doesn't even choose which photo this is done algorithmically and the photo is stitched together in lots of different ways. The human just prompted: 'Now!'

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#35

Post by [deleted] »

kirubakaran wrote: post #15
kube-system wrote: post #8

This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. But it doesn’t answer any tough questions either, like: if an AI model outputs something very close to a training input, does the result infringe on the copyrights of the input work?

And how close is too close?

[deleted]

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#36

Post by recuter »

> For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style.

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.

But I can certainly specify those things in the prompt. In fact I can write some of the poem and have it riff on the rest for me. And anyway how would you know whether or not and how much I was assisted by the AI. Strawberry Fields forever.

-- Written by llama 13b, edited by a human(?)

  -- Written by a human, edited by llama 13b(?)
    
    -- Written by llama 13b, edited by a human(?)

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#37

Post by kevingadd »

famouswaffles wrote: post #17

Not possible to reliably tell apart. The Image generation scene is one thing. For a lot of output, there are still some tells. Text generation though...well good luck ever finding that out.

It sounds like the honor system, which is not unprecedented. A lot of governmental systems rely on people to tell the truth when interacting with the government, and then they have to police cases of suspected fraud after the fact.

If you were dragged into a copyright suit by someone, you could probably try to prove that the work was AI generated as a defense? Not sure how effective it would be.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#38

Post by lIl-IIIl »

kube-system wrote: post #8

This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. But it doesn’t answer any tough questions either, like: if an AI model outputs something very close to a training input, does the result infringe on the copyrights of the input work?

The statement addresses this:

>The Office recognizes that AI-generated works implicate other copyright issues not addressed in this statement. It has launched an agency-wide initiative to delve into a wide range of these issues. Among other things, the Office intends to publish a notice of inquiry later this year seeking public input on additional legal and policy topics, including how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#39

Post by Retric »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…

Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera. Basically you instructed it to capture when it determined movement and the camera determined how those instructions are implemented in its output.

Timing is only one aspect of creativity.

In most settings a video camera’s output is copyrighted because of how you select the location and angel to film. Motion capture has all of those elements, and simply doesn’t capture 99.9% of the possible images. ie: Someone picked a log crossing the river as a place where something interesting will happen and they setup the shot to look interesting.

Which is the general argument why such setups fall under copyright. Though as always there are many edge cases.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#40

Post by bnj »

It's all well and good that the copyright office deems that protection only applies to the parts of the work where a human was in control of the traditional elements of authorship, and that there is a duty to disclose the use of generative technologies ... but now one can plausibly assert that they are the sole author of a work which was produced by one of these models, and be 100% confident that no one can dispute that.
Post reply on HN