Under this interpretation models themselves do not have copyright protection either
Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
91–100 of 225 posts
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#92Earlier 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?
learned
After a bit of thinking, I agree that "learned" is the most appropriate. I stand corrected.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#93If copyright does not protect AI-generated content, then AI should not be restricted from generating content that falls under copyright protection; yet, the reality is otherwise.
I'm not sure that logic holds. If I create a frame for frame copy of Star Wars then I cannot copyright it. However, that doesn't mean that I can still distribute my copy.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#94Earlier 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?
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).
This point makes sense to me. I agree with "learned" and "discovered".
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#95Does a photo/image that generated/modified by a human-being using photoshop got protected by copyright? I think previously someone does this...
Year ago, there was a painter, Thomas Kinkade, the "Painter of light".
He became a bit of a pop phenomenon, with stores dedicated to selling high quality prints of his works.
And one of the things, so I'm told, that could happen, was that you could buy one of his prints, but someone at the store, an artist, would dab some paint onto the print. Add some "light" to it.
Obviously this is a commercial endeavor, so I doubt the provenance of the rights holder was in doubt (such as through an employment agreement).
But it's, perhaps, an interesting case study about who owns what in a time of augmented and manipulated media.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#96As 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 by artificial intelligence is not protected by copyright." If that is faithful reading of the law, that makes sense. I know a number of people who use AI, but none of them (that are making anything actually useful) have the output "entirely generated" (aside from some POC tests that never see the light of day). I have a hard time believing anything of value, anything worth copyrigh…
> I have a hard time believing anything of value, anything worth copyrighting, could be entirely generated by AI.
Perhaps you're not stretching your imagination enough. What if an expert novelist used an AI like it were a fancy auto-completing dictation machine to write the next great American novel? AI may have "entirely generated" all the text, but what if they micromanaged the shit out it?
I can imagine the difference between someone who fires off a lazy 5 minute prompt, and someone who labors for months and months to get exactly the results they want.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#97Does 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
No, an AI's output can still violate copyright.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#98Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
I think that you might be taking "knowledge" too literally. As I read it, the parent's post was using "knowledge" poetically for the various works that AI companies stole.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#100I 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 '…
Information wants to be free. We should simply dispose of copyright. With LLMs, waters that were already muddy are now a thick slurry. And it's only going to get worse. It's an antiquated mechanism and is far more abused than it is actually used at this point.
If we got rid of copyright, what would prevent corporations from simply stealing artist's work?