As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? Under our current copyright culture and laws obviously not but that does open the question to how much does a human have to contribute and what evidence is required to show that a human contributed enough so that it can be copyrighted and patented. Some time in the future (may be many years) science may become to complicated for humans to understand fully with AI systems researching themselves. Current patent laws in many places including US says inventions created entirely by artificial intelligence cannot be patented. This future may be coming. What will the new copyright and patent laws look like in the future? Do we need copyrights and patents anymore?
Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
21–30 of 225 posts
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#221) Does applying a copyright message warrant that the content has not been generated by an AI?
2) If one applies a copyright message to AI generated output, is that fraudulent?
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#23The same is true in the US. This is a nothing burger.
It may be a nothing burger for US companies/persons, but the EU is fortunately not governed by US law. This is big news for us here.
It's not surprising, though, since the ECJ held in the Infopaq case that copyright (under the EU Directives) can only exist for something which is the intellectual creation of an author.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#24As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? Under our current copyright culture and laws obviously not but that does open the question to how much does a human have to contribute and what evidence is required to show that a human contributed enough so that it can be copyrighted and patented. Some time in the fut…
It means as long as you can find a few employees who testify that they made "creative input" during the process and nobody can disprove that, you're fine.
It's like things that are already in public domain. Even if you make a coloring book out of paintings in public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean others can just print your book as-is.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#25As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? Under our current copyright culture and laws obviously not but that does open the question to how much does a human have to contribute and what evidence is required to show that a human contributed enough so that it can be copyrighted and patented. Some time in the fut…
Why would copyright and patents exist when the US blatantly stole the entire world's knowledge to train their AI models (and China distillled from it)
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#26As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? Under our current copyright culture and laws obviously not but that does open the question to how much does a human have to contribute and what evidence is required to show that a human contributed enough so that it can be copyrighted and patented. Some time in the fut…
[dead]
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#27Interesting. In addition to Anthropic's watermark use to prevent model collapse, we can definitively call something copyrighted or not copyrighted. This is a boon to everyone who consumes culture.
That doesn't actually work. Say you took a book and used an AI to translate it into another language. The translation wouldn't have an additional copyright, the way it would if a human had done the work, but the output would still be restricted by the original copyright. So the presence of the watermark does not tell you that the text is public domain.
I thought translations can be copyrighted separately. Their are translators for instance who translate very old texts from other countries/languages and then sell that book/translation using copyright to protect this business models? Not sure but does this mean if you as a human wrote a book in English and then used AI to translate to another language say French then that translated work would not be copyrighted. Not sure how this would work.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#28Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#29Why should anyone want to have copyright on AI-generated content?
I feel like this question is typed wrong but the same reason someone wants copyright on human work to make money by prevent other people from stealing your work
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#30As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? Under our current copyright culture and laws obviously not but that does open the question to how much does a human have to contribute and what evidence is required to show that a human contributed enough so that it can be copyrighted and patented. Some time in the fut…
Why would copyright and patents exist when the US blatantly stole the entire world's knowledge to train their AI models (and China distillled from it)
Knowledge cannot be "stolen"