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

111–120 of 225 posts

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

#111

Post by gnopgnip »

xoa wrote: post #78
randyrand wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 generat…

There is a spark of creativity in the monkey case that very often doesn’t apply to dashcam footage

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

#112

Post by dfedbeef »

dfedbeef wrote: post #108
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…

Seems about right. Copyright is supposed to literally prevent outright copying. The output from an LLM is not a creative work of the prompter. It's genuinely the opposite, I use them when I don't care about something but have to do it anyway for whatever reason. It makes more time for me to do the things I like working on. It feels shitty that they have been trained on the life sums of all of our work and online pres…

I feel like people will be upset by this take... But you don't get credit for the creativity of an idea alone. Every asshole has ideas. It's called a work of art for a reason, emphasis on WORK.

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

#113

Post by jesterswilde »

harimau777 wrote: post #100
atomicnumber3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Isn't that what the AI companies already did?

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

#114

Post by somenameforme »

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.

I think the issue you then run into is imagine another human came, picked up the camera, and used it to take a picture of whatever. It'd be fairly self evident that that the photographer would own the copyright to that work, but in your take - it'd be the camera owner.

So you're more of trying to create a special rule where if the normal recipient of a copyright would be invalid, then it slides to the 'nearest' most appropriate individual, but that seems extremely fragile and difficult to define.

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

#115

Post by voxelghost »

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.

wasnt there a case a while back, where GPL or LGPL code made its way into MIT licensed software via LLM? And they were forced to remove the copyleft code. I dont remember the details though.

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

#117

Post by kijin »

raincole wrote: post #107
Lazare wrote: post #105

Interesting thought experiment is to consider an author who writes a novel in English, but wants to translate it into German. They have a copyright on the original, and if they hire a human, the human would have a copyright on the translation (which would generally be licensed or transferred back to the author in some way). If they use an AI for the translation, by the logic here, the translation wouldn't have its ow…

> Some combination of the input (0.3k vs 90k) and the output (logo versus novel) crosses an inflection point, and it's interesting to wonder what the boundaries are It has always been like that though. Copyright is just that arbitrary. You really can't tell if Android violates Oracle's copyright over Java by reading law text.

It's supposed to be arbitrary. Copyright is not some sort of human right or divine commandment that creators have. It's a legal device to incentivize a certain type of behavior. Like tax cuts and subsidies, governments can dangle it in front of people whenever it wants.

Monkeys and LLMs (so far) either don't understand or don't need such incentives, so they don't get copyright.

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

#118

Post by unknownfuture »

raincole wrote: post #24
pizzly wrote: post #21

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.

> 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.

Have you been involved in copyright or patent litigation?

Because it's not that easy.

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

#119

Post by unified101 »

kijin wrote: post #117
raincole wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some combination of the input (0.3k vs 90k) and the output (logo versus novel) crosses an inflection point, and it's interesting to wonder what the boundaries are It has always been like that though. Copyright is just that arbitrary. You really can't tell if Android violates Oracle's copyright over Java by reading law text.

It's supposed to be arbitrary. Copyright is not some sort of human right or divine commandment that creators have. It's a legal device to incentivize a certain type of behavior. Like tax cuts and subsidies, governments can dangle it in front of people whenever it wants. Monkeys and LLMs (so far) either don't understand or don't need such incentives, so they don't get copyright.

Humans dont need incentives either, we an abolish it.

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

#120

Post by Joel_Mckay »

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.

Indeed, but people will continue to think vector search compaction similarity absolves folks of Trademark and Copyright liability.

As the dark specter of Disney Mickey Mouse looms over every LLM model involved in isomorphic and character plagiarism. Yes, even motion capture is considered a performance act in the guilds, so video reskinning an unlicensed performance act people make is also a liability.

It would sure save a lot of money if you don't get caught, so people are gonna try it for sure. =3

Post reply on HN