291–300 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlicensed Human Code is 100% copyrighted and closed source. Unlicensed AI Code is 0% copyrighted and open source and can't be closed.
When I have a LLM that spits out code identical to copyrighted code can I then use it legally? Otherwise I would need to check the output of every LLM for copyright infringement
That's a factually incorrect and legally inconvenient claim. Turns out you can convince the court of whatever you want if that means you lose your case:
"Yes your honour, I was both at my home and at the crime scene at the same time as I am omnipresent"
Doesn't mean alibis are no longer valid in court
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies own copyrights of works created by their employees, not works created by their works - if such works are somehow persons...
But typical contracts have the employee immediately assign copyright to the company, such that they never hold it. So I just don't see where the line is. In the extreme case, what if I am CEO of a company that has no other employees, and it's just me, pressing Enter once a day on a script named keep_creating_stuff.py, with the script generating shitloads of IP that is presumably mine for a microsecond before being au…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?
It can never be the AI. The AI is NOT a person. Why are we belaboring this?
This is clearly a case where we need new legislation. The US Copyright Act needed to be amended to cover photography. Prior to that photos were not copyrightable. It seems like we are on the same trajectory now. The real problem is that Congress is institutionally incapable of making simple amendments to law. Everything gets delegated to agency rule making regardless of whether anyone likes the outcome.
In other words is there important AI art that society would be missing out on because the originator deemed it not worth the effort without some protection against unauthorized copies being made?
I doubt this will settle the issue. We are about to enter the age of AI generated X (movies, games, etc. 'I want to watch a western tonight.' ...'generating'...). Would the end user own the copyright on that since they prompted it? We are very early days still so the deep implications of the direction and potential of this technology aren't even remotely understood well enough yet.
The issue is that, for the US in particular, the bar is a bit higher on how much human input is required. But generally, some human labor needs to be mixed with the result for it to be yours.
Every jurisdictions going to come up with a different standard, and then there will be an international treaty on it and then everyone will pipe down.
I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering: > As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. Dr. Thaler’s copyright registration application listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author, even though the Creativity Machine is not a human being. As a result, the Copyright Office appropriately denied Dr. Thaler’s appli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court didn't rule that AI generated art isn't eligible for copyright at all. They ruled that only humans may be assigned a copyright. If you are a human that uses AI as a tool to create something, the door is still open for you to claim copyright as a human. The court is ruling that computers themselves don't have the human right to copyright. Not exactly surprising.
> The court is ruling that computers don't have human rights. No, it is just ruling that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. Whether computers have human rights is not an issue before the court.
So are distillation models copyrightable? Can't wait until models generate models and we are finally free of the copyright and software patent troll extorsion rackets.
There's a fair chance models of any kind are not copyrightable.
The models are not copyrightable, they are a derivative work of the collection of works that went into producing them as they are a mathematical transformation of that data.
Related to the other famous example - https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-12-22-14.pdf
> The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings although the Office may register a work where the applicant or the deposit copy(its) state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.
> Examples:
> • A photograph taken by a monkey.
It then goes on...
> Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.
I believe that taking a bunch of photographs (or other works) and producing a model falls into that category of a machine or mechanical process that operates without creative input.
However I do also believe that a model is sufficiently transformative that it, in of itself, is not an infringement... and however again, the output of the model is not copyrightable itself and it may be infringing upon the works used to produce it.
This is pretty much the exact same case as the monkey that took a photo. The photo is now in the public domain as the monkey cannot be an author of the photo and since the photographer didn't take the photo, neither is he the author. The US Copyright Office clarified that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines…
In similar fashion to this:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/musicians-algorithmically-ge...