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

341–350 of 415 posts

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

#341

Post by wongarsu »

dublinben wrote: post #236
iainctduncan wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, almost any proof that you danced that concept would be fixing it to a tangible medium. That rule mostly just rules out heresay, eyewitness accounts, and other such methods of "proving" that you created something

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

#342

Post by Entinel »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #337

Pointless screaming at the tide hoping it won’t come in. In 3 years there won’t be a major digital tool that isn’t pipelining through ai especially in CG and music, in 10 years the pre-AI versions of those tools won’t run on a modern computer. Unless you’re ready to say “anything made with Adobe CC can’t be copyrighted “ then this is pointless to debate.

They specifically address works that use AI but are sufficiently modified by a human

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

#343

Post by alphanullmeric »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #328
alphanullmeric wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bike is real property. Your thoughts are not.

Tell me you have never done anything creative in your life without telling me you have never done anything creative in your life.

Implying I’d be willing to bend my principles when they don’t benefit me, which I wouldn’t. That’s what makes us different.

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

#344

Post by qwerty456127 »

I would speculate there will be no works containing no material generated by artificial intelligence soon. At least it will become a common practice to use a GPT to improve your language, possibly also assist the creative proccess by supplying facts and suggesting creative ideas. Everybody uses spell checkers and thesauri already (some also use grammar checkers like Grammarly), also google things up - this will be increasingly extended/replaced with advanced AIs usage. It is generally considered correct for a writer to hire assisnatnst who would proofread their writings before publishing them or even assist their thought through conversation so I can see no big deal in an AI doing the same job.

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

#346

Post by victorbjorklund »

Kerrick wrote: post #176
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…

> If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable? I am not a lawyer and I did not research anything for this, but I'm under the impression that a derivative work of something in the public domain is itself copyrightable. If something isn't copyrightable, it's in the public domain. So, if you alter it…

Yes, exactly. If you for example rewrite parts of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliette you have copyright on the changes you made. So the parts you didn't change are in the public domain while the parts that are changed you got the copyright for (assuming the changes reach the level of copyright and aren't just for example spelling errors). Same with code. If you extend a MIT library you have copyright to the changes you made but not the parts that aren't changed.

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

#347

Post by Riverheart »

andybak wrote: post #273
Riverheart wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just go ahead and say Readymades aren't art and express my belief that the artistic community will survive the copyright loss of loosely arranged furniture so we can avoid justifying the current state of affairs with avante garde silliness. John Cage made a musical piece 4'33 which is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence which has as much to do with music as Readymades do with art. His other works include curated…

John Cage also wrote some genuinely beautiful music and was a sincere and thoughtful artist. It just needs to said that he wasn't a merely a "gimmick" man.

I'm only familiar with those elements of his career so if you have so recommendations I'd be happy to explore his other work.

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

#348

Post by amalcon »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #322
Stratoscope wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare” Oh, this can be fun. “Write a story about copyright law in the style of Franz Kafka.” In a world that was both strange and familiar, a man named Josef K found himself entangled in a complex web of legal disputes. It all started when he received a letter from a law firm claiming that he had violated copyright law by using an image on his blog wit…

But this does not read like Kafka at all... Am I missing a joke here?

Clearly the model interpreted "in the style of Franz Kafka" to mean "featuring an inscrutable, uncaring, and inescapable bureaucracy".

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

#349

Post by alphanullmeric »

hnbad wrote: post #312
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.

There is no such thing as private property. It's a fiction enforced with the threat of violence. It's even fairly recent as a concept. If we agree that private property should exist, "it's not real" is not a good argument for why intellectual property shouldn't exist. Not all violations of private property have to be stealing. If I sleep in the empty house you own, that is trespass even if I don't cause any physical…

Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT?

I don’t want the government to be involved in virtual money. Stocks are a claim to physical property, corporations are (or should be) a convenient way to address physical property pooled together from multiple people. The rest of your comment can be addressed with the homestead principle - if I didn’t take it by force you can’t take it from me by force.

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

#350

Post by mindvirus »

brotchie wrote: post #45

I’m curious. If I’ve spent 8 hours getting the perfect prompt, fine tuning a few LORAs, mixing them, choosing between 8 different checkpointed stable diffusion models, and have done a bunch of in painting, does this constitute a copyrightable work? Certainly a lot of artistic vision and effort to get to the finished “work”.

Very interesting take! I wonder if a similar argument would apply to something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOD7HQOnKAE - where the setup is a lot of work, but the actual execution is entirely up to nature/gravity.
Post reply on HN