31–40 of 225 posts
The same is true in the US. This is a nothing burger.
It hadn’t been established yet in the EU. It would be a big deal if it went the other way in Europe so it being the same isn’t a nothing burger.
The 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.
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 fut…
Take note of the qualifier entirely. If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.
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 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.
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 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.
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 fut…
> Content that is entirely generated [...] Take note of the qualifier entirely . If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.
Copyright didn't always exist, nor should it continue to. Hell; it must not.
I think the words (read: hilarious 1.25pp pamphlet) of Aaron Swartz on the topic are just too poignant to ignore, given the paths of Reddit (corrupted yet democratic), IP law (malignant yet showing cracks), and government survellience have taken in the Trump era. Despite the dated context... he really says it best:
https://ia800101.us.archive.org/1/items/GuerillaOpenAccessMa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps but what about individual works done not via a company. Say you are a author and someone falsely detects a AI watermark in your book. Is the testimony you provide enough to override that falsely detected AI watermark? My feeling is that there will be an industry that arises that proves you contributed to the works you want copyrighted.
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 fut…
> Content that is entirely generated [...] Take note of the qualifier entirely . If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Content that is entirely generated [...] Take note of the qualifier entirely . If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.
Where is this qualification in the legal language?