211–220 of 225 posts
Earlier 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"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48821172>
Does 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?
And this is one of the reasons some people are up in arms about Anthropic's recent inclusion of watermarking against anything Claude models touch. It will even take human-generated code that it works on and apply watermarks to it which can be then used to prove it was AI processed and perhaps invalidate any copyright on even human-written code.
Imagine what this would do to a product like Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Office!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In cinema it works the same as in software engineering. There is an exception to normal copyright law where works made in the course of employment are treated as if the author is the employer rather than the actual author of the work. Its known in copyright law as a "work for hire" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire > In the United States, United Kingdom, and several other jurisdictions, if a work is created…
If employment is an exception, I wonder what would happen if an animal that you owned pressed the shutter on a camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that for the whole EU? I understood it was country specific, for example France doesn’t let you give up your copyright, but other EU members do
Makes it even worse. Basically it hugely depends. For example Finland allows letting go of commercial exploitation rights and even make binding statement on that. But still there always remains right for them to be informed if copies are being published. Not to even mention moral rights on how such work can or can not be changed if it would be disparaging for example...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who set the value? I wouldn’t have sold any of my content to ai companies for training, the payback would be basically infinite
The artists can demand whatever they want. If the megacorps didn't want to pay it then they shouldn't have used it without permission. Alternatively, they could remove the art from the LLM and divide their past profits among the artists.
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.
Dashcams and security footage definitely don’t have copyright protection. Are you seriously thinking that the construction worker who set up the camera would then have copyright over everything it records?
Same as when hiring a software engineer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people freqently spend more than two years trying to get something published.
Two years might be too short. The overwhelming majority of works have an effective commercial life of less than ten years. Present-value analysis further reduces the individual benefit of long-lived copyright. That is warrented in only a minuscule fraction of all works. (There are roughly 1 million books published in English annually, of which ... ten make the top-ten best-seller list. The situation gets worse if we…
Copyright is a fairly basic protection on Work, and wanting to alter it to be based on percived value is catastrophic- On one end you'll deny copyright to security camera footage- nevermind it's of a meteorite and everybody is clamoring for a copy. Then, on the other hand you'll have micky mouse where it's such a big thing and Walt put so much effort into it that the copyright is perpetual. It'll tie up the courts, and give the Have's the power to remove the copyright or SLAPP the rightsholder into poverty.
We need patent reform far more than any complaint against Copyright that I've seen- and far too many people conflate the two. Lets not even talk about trademarks.
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 [...] Take note of the qualifier entirely . If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.
> Munich Local Court has held that
Local Court in Germany is the equivalent of the Magistrates Court in the UK or Australia.
Definitely not the arbiter of ultimate truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the legal language?
Exactly, I don't know how the person I was replying to was making such confident statements about the situation.
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…
No, just the stuff from people who think whatever they prompted from an AI is a contribution to creative works, science, etc.