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

241–250 of 415 posts

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

#241

Post by shagie »

randombits0 wrote: post #143
brookst wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not advocating copyrightable software, but it seems clear to me that if databases are copyrightable because they represent curation, then software must be too. Any line of code, probably not. But a program as a whole, sure. Otherwise I think you blow up music copyrights too, since a single note isn’t copyrightable and a song is just a bunch of individual notes. At some point, choosing, ordering, and organizing a coll…

While not so in other jurisdictions, databases are not copyrightable in the US. That was true when I last read Groklaw at least.

Sweat of the brow (any work you do is copyrightable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

vs.

"Original work of authorship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... (in particular the comparison section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... )

The court case that set this difference down was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....

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

#242

Post by weavejester »

kube-system wrote: post #87
weavejester wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. Is that sarcasm?

Not at all. There’s literally nothing in this article that would go against ideas already covered in an introductory lecture in copyright law.

Thanks for the clarification; I wasn't sure how you meant it.

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

#243

Post by nextlevelwizard »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #52

Yay, the software development industry is saved! (only partly /s) Not that I thought AI would be writing decent code for a while yet, but the fact that AI-generated code can't be copyrighted (and therefore licensed[0]) is going to create problems. It'll be interesting where they draw the line with this, though: If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be o…

How do you determine if code is written by an AI?

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

#244

Post by FeepingCreature »

provenance wrote: post #208
techdragon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that assumes people are honest about the providence of their content and let you know up front that it was produced by an Ai and is thus not protected by copyright… and given the preponderance of copyright info in website footers, I expect this will be an error of omission rather than actively claiming incorrectly. By simply not giving individual articles a more specific copyright note mentioning the AI all…

Did you intend to summon me, instead of the word providence?

to explain:

- provenance: the source or origin of something

- providence: divine guidance.

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

#245

Post by nextlevelwizard »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #213

Unpopular opinion : the government shouldn’t protect your art from getting used as training data. The government shouldn’t protect your generated art from being copied. Intellectual property is not real property. Nothing is being taken from you. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get the right to throw someone in jail for “stealing” something you still have.

Do you also agree that government should not enforce if I borrow your bike while you are not using it if I return it? If not how is that different? You still have the bike and you werent using it while I borrowed it - you just didn’t know I was borrowing it

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

#246

Post by techdragon »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #244
provenance wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you intend to summon me, instead of the word providence?

to explain: - provenance: the source or origin of something - providence: divine guidance.

Sometimes I think autocorrect needs a little divine guidance, it is remarkably bad at correcting anything to certain words I forget the spelling off, and sometimes it’s definitely got a bias in its “most likely word” and I’m not suggesting a prejudicial bias, just a bias that’s less than ideal for me, and it never seems to learn that i never use one word over the other spans just keeps suggesting the words I don’t want over the ones I do.

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

#247

Post by golem14 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #182
techdragon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that assumes people are honest about the providence of their content and let you know up front that it was produced by an Ai and is thus not protected by copyright… and given the preponderance of copyright info in website footers, I expect this will be an error of omission rather than actively claiming incorrectly. By simply not giving individual articles a more specific copyright note mentioning the AI all…

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.

Well, if joe doe can now make a picture that rivals Pixar’s and it’s a commercial success, that puts a lot of pressure on Pixar & Co to reduce costs. Doesn’t matter whether joe doe gets rich with this or not.

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

#248

Post by epgui »

famouswaffles wrote: post #46
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…

Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress. 100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.

IANAL but AFAIK the way this typically works (as a general principle of administrative law in… most/many countries?) is that the administrative bodies who are delegated the power to make decisions are the authority on them.

If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct, and puts a relatively high bar towards reversing that decision. Typically a decision of an administrative body would only be overturned by a court if that decision was patently unreasonable or fell outside the jurisdiction of the body (eg.: if it violated a different law or some constitutional provision).

YMMV in different countries (I know more about Canada).

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

#250

Post by nextlevelwizard »

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.

Who has the burden of proof? Can I just claim everything and anything as “made by AI” and start (ab)using it and then it is up to the original author to proof that it wasn’t actually made by an AI?
Post reply on HN