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

131–140 of 225 posts

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

#131

Post by trickypr »

thevinter wrote: post #121
trickypr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if an artist programs a programs a carving robot to create a sculpture? How is that meaningfully different? Based on your logic that should not qualify, but it currently clearly does: https://quayola.com/selected-unfinished-sculptures/

I think the copyright should go to the tool creator in that case, if the tool is acting as an extension of the creator.

But if the tool is created from collective human creation, the copyright should belong to all humanity, not the person who triggered the tool.

If you trained an LLM entirely on your own input, I think you should own the output, but that is not the case for any widely-used llm.

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

#132

Post by kijin »

unified101 wrote: post #119
kijin wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Individual humans, maybe.

The Walt Disney Company insists otherwise.

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

#133

Post by Joel_Mckay »

randyrand wrote: post #72
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.

No, GPL is a contaminating license contract, so "AI" slop means you are probably in GPL violation by including isomorphic plagiarized uncopyrightable code. =3

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

#134

Post by unified101 »

jdswain wrote: post #62
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.

If you engineer a clean room process, it does not. Already proven with an open source project that went from GPL to MIT via clean room (chardet).

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

#135

Post by raincole »

unknownfuture wrote: post #118
raincole wrote: post #24

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.

> 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.

It's usually easier than that, as one by default hold the copyright of their works. Typically a company doesn't need to provide the whole working process and files to the court to claim copyright over their published products / to accuse pirates for violation.

If you're on the defendant side of a copyright violation case, it's extremely hard to use "well the original author didn't really make it...* as a defense. (Patent cases are often defended with this argument though, as a patent grants far boarder protection than copyright and can be rejected on prior art. But still it's very different from "AI made this actually.")

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

#136

Post by Joel_Mckay »

unethical_ban wrote: post #104
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.

It will be interesting if or when someone tries to enforce that perspective. Good luck proving an online contributor used AI on a merge request. Perhaps we'll have new iterations of FOSS licenses to adjust to legal declarations.

It is actually pretty easy when the area is very specific like 1 guys Perl library, and Claude ports it to Python for a group unaware of what happened.

All models know what Disney Mickey Mouse looks like too. =3

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

#137

Post by Ekaros »

randyrand wrote: post #72
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.

I find it hard to find correct terminology in this case. AI generated content is copy right wise in state of nothingness. It simply does not have copy right status like other material can have. As such maybe best I can formulate is that you can't enforce license violations against ai generated material as you do not have ownership.

So no license is enforceable with code written by AI.

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

#138

Post by rackp »

0x20cowboy wrote: post #51
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…

"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…

[dead]

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

#140

Post by tossaway0 »

trickypr wrote: post #75
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.

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?

After this ruling, I had an idea for a photo where I set up the entire set, camera, etc, but the photo entailed the model clicking the shutter while we were both in the shot. Just in case, I had the model write a quick note ceding the rights.

It's fine, I guess. How does it work in cinema? A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator.

Post reply on HN