Good luck proving the origin of these created works
Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
151–160 of 225 posts
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 differ…
It’s almost like laboring for months and months would have draft revisions, dozens of changes, and many other interactions they could prove as theirs defeating your entire argument.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#153Does this also extend to generated source code? I mean, this upend the business models of many A.I. companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. In addition, many ISVs would probably stop using A.I. if their products could lose their copyright.
And what about A.I. generated code which has been altered by a human? Is the derived work copyrightable?
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I am in favor of copyright reform so eventually it becomes something like two years automatic with a one time two year extension possible an I agree with you because of one key word — raw. Once the footage is used in a package, be it a movie, a news report, or a music video, that package can be copyrighted. The problem is there is no way the owner of a dashcam can prohibit commercial use of a video they own if it can…
people freqently spend more than two years trying to get something published.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#155Lots 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’m trying to imaging what giving credit would look like… “Credit: Everyone who has made anything freely observable on the internet.” Would folks be less upset if that was included?
Frankly, I should have been putting something similar attached to any drawings or paintings I make physically. My entire life I’ve been training my brain on countless works of others. And, I’ve never asked one of them for permission or given anyone any credit.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#156Interesting 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…
I don't see why the author of the 300-word prompt couldn't claim copyright of it.
As far as I'm following it, the court didn't suggest the prompt was not a protected work.
But what the court did say is that the logo wasn't (sufficiently) derived from the prompt; those 300 words weren't contained or encoded in the logo, so if you copied the logo without permission from the author of the prompt, this was fine, because you weren't in any meaningful sense copying that prompt, or any other protected work of the author. (Which in my view is fair enough, really!)
Another way of thinking about it is to consider:
1) The number of different prompts that would yield a very similar looking logo. In many cases, a one or two word difference would probably yield a very different logo. (Conversely, you could rewrite an entire chapter of the novel, but the other chapters would still be translated more-or-less unchanged. You'd need to rewrite every sentence to end up with an entirely new set of sentences in the output, and since copyright covers the arrangement of text, not the plot or ideas, that matters.)
2) How feasible it'd be to look at the logo and accurately guess the prompt. (Again considering the hypothetical novel, if you translated the novel back into English, entire passages would likely be word-for-word identical with the original.)
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Thinking more about monkeys, I think that case was made relatively easy because there was a normal living recipient for copyright, but that wasn't eligible for such. I'm fairly certain that dashcam footage, which is 100% automated, as you mention, is copyrighted by default. It's a fairly common source of footage of novel events like a meteorite, rocket impact, or whatever else. And that footage is licensed to media c…
Theoretically, in the US dashcam, CCTV, and similar automated recordings are not copyrightable. In the US you can only copyright creative expression. However, the question hasn't been answered in court, yet, AFAIU.
That doesn't stop people from treating automated recordings as if they were copyrighted, though. Especially for media companies, licensing is standard operating procedure. Even if a media company's lawyers believe something isn't actually copyrightable, if the licensor and licensee believe it is, and especially if distribution outlets (e.g. YouTube) treat it as such, then it all works out.
In some other countries automated footage is copyrightable, AFAIU, but it varies.
> In any case, any country that decides neural network generated media isn't copyrighted then faces a major, and probably impossible, problem of trying to prove it wasn't made by a human.
In the US the initial burden is on the person claiming a copyright violation. In court that is met by simply showing a certificate from the Copyright Office. In fact, it's actually a requirement--you can't sue in court to enforce a copyright claim with a certificate. But in getting the certificate you would be making a declaration that it was made by a human.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#158Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#159Earlier 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…
Somebody exerted effort.
That’s it.
Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU
#160This then implies that in the EU, AI-generated content cannot have a license applied? MIT, GPL, CC, etc?
This has already also been implied in the US. Courts upheld the Copyright Office's stance on human creation in the context of AI image generation. There's no reason to expect something that fundamental to copyright to be any different for other media, such as source code.
It's reasonable to expect this to hold for all Berne Convention countries.
All licenses are unenforceable if you don't hold the copyright, since you don't have a copyright to license. And attempting to do so would probably be perjury.