Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

mathstodon.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#61

Post by derektank »

semiquaver wrote: post #50
VanTheBrand wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It hasn’t been established in the US either, despite how desperately some people want to misinterpret the handful of cases so far.

It’s been established in the DC circuit, where basically any challenges to copyright office decisions would need to be brought. For all intents and purposes, until the Supreme Court or Congress decide to weigh in, it’s pretty well established that AI generated content cannot receive copyright. There will probably be some decisions around the edges regarding when human editorial input might result in a copyright being awarded to the editor, but it would be very surprising to see the precedent overturned completely, particularly given its grounding in previous caselaw.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#62

Post by jdswain »

apatheticonion wrote: post #53

Does this mean someone could develop a switch emulator using an AI and Nintendo couldn't win a lawsuit against them? Does it enable decompilation remasters of classic games? It feels like AI is a cleanroom laundromat

Not a lawyer, but I'd expect that decompilation creates a derived work which is still subject to the copyright of the original.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#63

Post by pizzly »

raincole wrote: post #38
pizzly wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(I think) the case depends on what AI watermarks are. As far as I know, things like SynthID has practically zero false positives.

My understanding is that you get back a percentage from SynthID regarding how confident it thinks the text is generated by AI or not. The question is what percentage would be considered undeniable that it is AI generated or require more than just your testimony to prove that you actually did the work yourself. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08025-4 (Google Deepmind) was using a "Watermark detectability is measured using the true-positive rate (TPR) when the false-positive rate (FPR) is set to 1%" for instance in their research paper. This 1% was set arbitrary just for the research paper but what percentage should it be set to?

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#64

Post by dbetteridge »

sebastiennight wrote: post #41
benjismith wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowledge cannot be "stolen"

You wrote your house's security code on a Post-It note. Somebody came in as a houseparty guest and located the note, and discretely copied it onto their hand to get access to the house during your next vacation. Which verb would describe their knowledge of this security code?

Obtained, read, viewed, learned, discovered.

The knowledge wasn't obtained illegally or illicitly, immorally perhaps.

Illegal entry/trespass is a crime regardless of the method used however.

In your analogy copying the code (online content) isn't necessarily illegal, however using that knowledge without compensation, permission or attribution may be a crime (depending on copyright law, judges rulings etc).

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#66

Post by trickypr »

jmward01 wrote: post #57

I don't see an easy test here. Worse, I see the beginnings of a test that is technical and very likely to not match the future of how we will interact with these things. We have to start somewhere but I'm not sure 'Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution.' is the right place to start. I think we need more examples of what does constitute '…

I think there is an easy test: if you didn’t write it, it’s not yours.

If we go back 10 years and your friend says “I have an idea for an app, here it is,” and you build it, you own the copyright because you wrote it.

You give an idea to the pile of math calculated of the stolen work of humanity, the math owns it (which it can’t, so no one owns it).

No matter how detailed of a conversation you have with a friend, I don’t think they have justification to claim copyright over code written by you.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#67

Post by aeon_ai »

semiquaver wrote: post #50
VanTheBrand wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It hasn’t been established in the US either, despite how desperately some people want to misinterpret the handful of cases so far.

Very clearly established.

AI only = no copyright.

“A Single Piece of American Cheese” got a copyright because it had human involvement in compositing.

Theatre D’Opera did not because it was primarily prompt driven.

Thaler didn’t because he said it was machine derived.

Humans must be involved for a copyright.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#68

Post by Planktonne »

gruez wrote: post #47
sebastiennight wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote your house's security code on a Post-It note. Somebody came in as a houseparty guest and located the note, and discretely copied it onto their hand to get access to the house during your next vacation. Which verb would describe their knowledge of this security code?

"eavesdropped"? "spied"? Whatever it is, slapping "steal" on it because what was done is wrong, and stealing is wrong, is the same sloppy logic that the copyright lobby used in the 80s/90s.

If 'steal' doesn't fit, then neither do 'eavesdrop' or 'spied'.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#69

Post by randyrand »

t-writescode wrote: post #6

This matches historical precedent in other nations where copyright was not extended to a photographer when a primate took a photo of themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

That was a terrible ruling. It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams) there isn't even "a button."

Hopefully no judge uses that as precedence.

Post reply on HN