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

71–80 of 225 posts

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

#71

Post by pornel »

socalgal2 wrote: post #65

So this means you can not use AI for the majority of open source projects since GPL, MIT, BSD, etc are all copyright declarations and they'd be being made for code which you can not copyright.

You can't enforce those licenses against AI-generated parts, because enforcement relies on the recipient having no other way to avoid copyright infringement.

However, there's no issue with including non-copyrightable code in otherwise copyrighted projects. There's already plenty of non-copyrightable code like auto-generated boilerplate.

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

#72

Post by randyrand »

socalgal2 wrote: post #65

So this means you can not use AI for the majority of open source projects since GPL, MIT, BSD, etc are all copyright declarations and they'd be being made for code which you can not copyright.

No it would mean the license does not apply to the parts of code written by AI.

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

#73

Post by mindcandy »

Lots of wild guesses about mixed human-AI copyright in here. Last time I read the copyright office’s statements in this, their stance was basically: The human owns exactly what they contribute. The rest is public domain.

Yes, that is vague. I think the examples were like:

If you paint a symbol and use an AI filter over that to stylize it, you own the symbol aspect of the image but not the stylized final result.

You can own a book of AI images as a curated collection. But, not the individual images.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

mindcandy wrote: post #73

Lots of wild guesses about mixed human-AI copyright in here. Last time I read the copyright office’s statements in this, their stance was basically: The human owns exactly what they contribute. The rest is public domain. Yes, that is vague. I think the examples were like: If you paint a symbol and use an AI filter over that to stylize it, you own the symbol aspect of the image but not the stylized final result. You c…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by trickypr »

randyrand wrote: post #69
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.

What if it was a human who took the photo, would the copyright still be owned by the equipment owner / person who set it up?

What if this applied in a photography class? The instructor owns the equipment and helped “set up” the photo. Does the instructor own the copyright?

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

randyrand wrote: post #69
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.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by xoa »

randyrand wrote: post #69
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.

>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".

I'm actually having a bit of trouble thinking of what sufficient societal good there is/would be in granting copyright on raw dashcam or security camera or the like footage? None of those purely mechanical automated systems need a subsidy or encouragement to generate more. Certainly someone can use that sort of thing in the creation of a copyrighted work but what would be the issue with the underlying material in that case being unprotected?

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

#79

Post by kstenerud »

This post is glossing over most of the nuance in EU law.

The AI system must function merely as a tool or instrument (like a camera or Photoshop) guided by the human, rather than acting as the creator itself. The line may get a bit fuzzy case-by-case, but effectively the human must be the creative one, not the AI.

This is not unprecedented. Machine generated technical data, sensor outputs, automated surveilance photography, monkey selfies, purely algorithmic or generative music and such were already disqualified long before AI came along.

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

#80

Post by kolinko »

trickypr wrote: post #66
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 d…

That's how you want it to be, but that's not how it is.
Post reply on HN