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

231–240 of 415 posts

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

#231

Post by avereveard »

RHSeeger wrote: post #227
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…

I'm curious where the "line" is, though. If I do a web search for a term, I get various results. As I refine my search, the results get closer to what I want. Eventually, there comes a point where it's possible to recognize that there is "skill" associated with crafting a good web search. To some extent, the same is true of crafting what you tell the AI to generate for you; especially as AIs become more complex in wh…

Never for the generated work, because a human isn't doing it, but you may be able to copyright the prompt

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

#232

Post by zamnos »

pmoriarty wrote: post #170
kccqzy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the linked article? > In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constituti…

"so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author." "representatives of original intellectual conceptions"? Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like? What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family sna…

Interestingly is the case of a monkey taking a selfie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...

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

#233

Post by josephcsible »

visarga wrote: post #219
dllthomas wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that this position is wrong, but it seems wildly inconsistent with our policy that every photograph I take is protected by copyright, no matter how inane and low effort. I have images I generated with Craiyon (then Dall-E Mini) into which I put way more creative effort than any of the photos on my phone.

Take a photo of your screen! BAM. solved

Didn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... rule that that trick doesn't work?

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

#234

Post by ar9av »

I'm sure there will be a number of ramifications but one I know of is for those who sell specific captures of guitar amps that were created through machine learning just lost their copyright on that product. Those works could not have existed without the AI that was used to create them.

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

#235

Post by dragonwriter »

ROTMetro wrote: post #228
laserbeam wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist I find this very reasonable and a great analogy. However, today, can one not copyright commissioned work? Can a company not own copyright for work produced by its employees?

In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company. Another option would be for the artist to 'license' the work to the company and keep copyright ownership themselves. Since there is no original artist to be granted copyright then there is no one to assign it to the company so no copyright under current statute. I and others got so many downvotes here for pointing this out previo…

> In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company.

Not if it meets the standards for a “work for hire”, then the employer is the copyright owner ab initio.

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

#236

Post by dublinben »

iainctduncan wrote: post #201
Bjartr wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all that is required to copyright a written work is to write it and declare it copyright You don't even need to declare it. Declaring it only affects things like whether infringement is "willful" or not when deciding penalties. If you create a (US) copyrightable work, you retain the copyright by default. For it to not be under copyright you have to explicitly place it in the public domain.

I could be wrong, but I think I remembered reading that in music at least, you have to do something with it (like capture it on paper or recording). I seem to remember reading this came about to prevent people from being able to say something was copyright because they maintained they had written something say 10 years ago but just not gotten around to recording it - and then wanted to sue. But this is vague memories…

Correct. The law requires it to be “fixed in any tangible medium.” Such as transcribing onto paper, recording onto record, exposed onto film, etc. Merely thinking, saying, playing, singing, dancing, etc a newly created concept is too ephemeral to be a recognizable act of authorship.

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

#237

Post by heavyset_go »

RHSeeger wrote: post #227
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…

I'm curious where the "line" is, though. If I do a web search for a term, I get various results. As I refine my search, the results get closer to what I want. Eventually, there comes a point where it's possible to recognize that there is "skill" associated with crafting a good web search. To some extent, the same is true of crafting what you tell the AI to generate for you; especially as AIs become more complex in wh…

Being good at using a search engine doesn't mean that the produced results are your IP.

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

#238

Post by janosdebugs »

calgarymicro wrote: post #194
bcrosby95 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People might not be honest. But large organizations, oh boy. There's zero way Disney will want any chance for their materials to not be copyrightable. If the Copyright office's view on this stands, there will be no great disruption of the employability of creatives.

True. Though I wonder what will happen when someone sells a wildly successful novel to a publisher for millions of dollars, and then it turns out that it was composed by an AI.

Lawsuits and headlines :)

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

#239

Post by heavyset_go »

ROTMetro wrote: post #228
laserbeam wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist I find this very reasonable and a great analogy. However, today, can one not copyright commissioned work? Can a company not own copyright for work produced by its employees?

In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company. Another option would be for the artist to 'license' the work to the company and keep copyright ownership themselves. Since there is no original artist to be granted copyright then there is no one to assign it to the company so no copyright under current statute. I and others got so many downvotes here for pointing this out previo…

> In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company.

Whoever paid you to create it is the copyright holder, the artist doesn't have to grant anything when commissioned to produce work for hire, as it's the employers'.

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

#240

Post by z3c0 »

Semaphor wrote: post #218
visarga wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, it has that GPT style, sounds like a rushed story

It’s a decent start, but everything is just cheap . Lots of low-hanging fruits, ignoring anything higher up. In a way, it’s like as if I, someone who doesn’t enjoy writing, and is bad at it, wrote the story.

You don't even have to read it. This GPT-2 output detector tags it as 0.63% chance of being written by a human.

https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/

Post reply on HN