Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#401

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #355
Retric wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compilers don’t create a new copyright the output is covered as a derivative work. However, derivative works have clear limitations and the output of a chat program doesn’t qualify any more than you own the copyright of what someone says when you interview them. Put another way you don’t own the copyright on the specific shape of a tree as a sculpture because you selected its species when you planted it.

> Compilers don’t create a new copyright the output is covered as a derivative work. A derivative work is a separate work that, considered apart from the one it is derived from, separately has the required creative input to be a copyrightable work, and it does, in fact, have a separate copyright from the original (creating derivative works is an exclusive, but licensable, right of the copyright holder of the original…

I don’t know if that distinction was intended as a limitation, “sound recording” is listed as a derivative work in the statute. It also clarifies that “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords

So, mechanical transformation such as rendering a webpage at 150% scale is seemingly a derivative work even if there isn’t any creativity in the process.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#402

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #5
rvz wrote: post #2

The human authorship requirement still stands: > If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. [0] Even with that, applicants now must disclose the inclusion of AI generated content and highlight which parts are human authored vs AI generated: > Consistent with the Office's policies described above, applicants have a dut…

If an author chooses not to credit an AI, how are they going to know? It's already not completely obvious with the current state of the art in at least some domains. What happens when the tech moves from "Not completely obvious" to "Impossible to tell?"

I've seen Grammarly commercials.

What if I write some paragraphs, and then drag a big Grammarly slider across it, and it's no longer my words, but my ideas are still there, just buffed and touched up professionally?

What's "AI generation" anyway?

I wrote a limerick for a friend last week. Well, I had the idea for it and it was jangling inside my head, but I didn't feel like fleshing it out, so I had the AI write it. I was accused of "cheating". But I'm capable of writing this limerick; I just wanted to see if a computer could put a ribbon on it. And it worked fine. I claim authorship (and copyright) nonetheless.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#403

Post by pbhjpbhj »

RHSeeger wrote: post #391
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prompt isn't a creative work, it's constrained by a technical need (producing a desired response from a generative computer system).v

So is work done in a program like photoshop, and that is considered a creative work.

The steps you take to make a work in a graphics program, eg "open an image, circle area with lasso tool, apply content-aware-fill" are not copyrightable. The method and product are different things.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#404

Post by yipbub »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #327
yipbub wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In universe of perfectly slippery spherical cows, I wouldn't mind. However, in this universe bikes experience wear, I wouldn't be able to spontaneously decide to use it, etc.

You writing a shitty knock off Harry Potter novel "wears" on the brand. Just think your favorite book, movie, or music and think if you would enjoy it if there was really no way to know what was real work and what was just some copy-cat or straight up scammer selling rubbish. Now it is easy; you can not publish your Harry Potter novel due to copyright. Put it in another way: to become a author in a world where copyri…

I agree with the business use-case for copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it is a useful collective agreement. To the extent that it is useful.

I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#405

Post by nextlevelwizard »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #398
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Press X to doubt

Should you be fined for copying an NFT or do your intellectual “property” rules only apply when they benefit you?

What does "copying an NFT" mean?

1. You mean copying the image that the NFT points to?

    The copyright of that image still exists even with the NFT. So existence of NFT doesn't change anything about the picture's copyright. With or without NFT you can not sell prints of the image or use it however you want without permission of the copyright holder.
2. You mean copying the actual NFT i.e. somehow taking over the block in the chain and assigning it to you?

    That is a kin to stealing. Why does it matter if the property is digital or physical? This is the kind of mental gymnastics kids use to justify their pirating of entertainment. "I only *copied* this album, I didn't steal it, the artist still has theirs" is such 14 years old's take on the issue. If you don't want to pay for the media you are consuming then don't pay, but then you also shouldn't consume it. This kind of take just shows more how some people haven never created anything of value, yet they want to extract every bit of value from the society.
It sure would be nice if we lived in a world where copyright and patents weren't necessary, but people try to take advantage of everything and anything, so to protect innovation and creativity we need copyright and patents.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#406

Post by marcus_holmes »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #396
marcus_holmes wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. I assume the methods they're using to determine if an essay is written by an AI won't work on code?

How do you determione with an essay is written by an AI?

There have been some papers and articles on it. Apparently it's possible (with GPT3 anyway, maybe not GPT4).

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#407

Post by anticensor »

epgui wrote: post #248
famouswaffles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress. 100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.

IANAL but AFAIK the way this typically works (as a general principle of administrative law in… most/many countries?) is that the administrative bodies who are delegated the power to make decisions are the authority on them. If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct, and puts a relatively high bar towards reversing that decisio…

> If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct,

Same here, the underlying principle is called the presumption of legitimacy, the organisational counterpart of the presumption of innocence.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#408

Post by dragonwriter »

epgui wrote: post #248
famouswaffles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress. 100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.

IANAL but AFAIK the way this typically works (as a general principle of administrative law in… most/many countries?) is that the administrative bodies who are delegated the power to make decisions are the authority on them. If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct, and puts a relatively high bar towards reversing that decisio…

> If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct

In the US, at least, it varies considerably by the exact kind of decision and the context in which it is being applied, ranging from extremely strong deference (Chevron deference) to anti-deference in some contexts. And opposing Chevron deference was an overt priority of the Trump Administration in judicial selection, so in general it would be reasonable to expect deference overall in the US to wane for some time.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#409

Post by anticensor »

antibasilisk wrote: post #115
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…

I never thought what would end copyright would be artificial intelligence, but I'm glad at least something positive came out of it.

This is only applicable to a creativity based copyright hence this might actually trigger a shift to a copyright system more like the British or the Japanese ones.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#410

Post by anticensor »

hnbad wrote: post #305
brotchie wrote: post #45

I’m curious. If I’ve spent 8 hours getting the perfect prompt, fine tuning a few LORAs, mixing them, choosing between 8 different checkpointed stable diffusion models, and have done a bunch of in painting, does this constitute a copyrightable work? Certainly a lot of artistic vision and effort to get to the finished “work”.

That sounds like your prompt is protected by copyright. I don't see why the output of a machine you feed your prompt into should be.

That argument runs afoul of the "rule of the shorter term" of the jurisdictions that start the copyright term from the publication instead of creation.
Post reply on HN