Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

reuters.com

541–550 of 562 posts

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#541
post #488
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL is considered by its author to be a “hack” on the copyright system to perpetually enforce source availability. Most consider it unnecessarily restrictive and would prefer a world without it, Stallman included. But since Xerox used copyright to sue people trying to fix their own broken copiers, which they owned, here we are. Point is, removing copyright also removes the need for the GPL in the first place. All…

Removing copyright allows a company to take something that is in the public domain, make changes to it and not release the changes . Yes, the GPL is a hack on the distribution of derivative works... but without those teeth to bite with and enforce, then nothing prevents one from taking some code that is not-copyrighted, making changes to it, and keeping the code to it completely in house while releasing it in a way t…

You forget that because the company cannot enforce copyright, I can just take whatever bits the company distributes to me and do what I please with them. I wouldn’t he opposed to a broad law requiring software companies to make buildable sources available for all software they use to deliver a product, but I doubt we’re that liberal yet. That is essentially what Stallman was asking for and the GPL is a means.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#542
post #536
post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

So what. Why do you think that determinism should play any role here?

Determinism or randomness should play no role here. The fact that the output is a function of model, training data and prompt (and nothing else) makes the result a derived work from the training data.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#543
post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

AI is always human until it isn’t. It’s not copyright infringement if the AI learned from input like a human but also it’s just a tool that can’t copyright its own output. It’s a moral imperative someone ought to make money off that /s

Most importantly it can't be held liable like a human.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#544
post #541
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing copyright allows a company to take something that is in the public domain, make changes to it and not release the changes . Yes, the GPL is a hack on the distribution of derivative works... but without those teeth to bite with and enforce, then nothing prevents one from taking some code that is not-copyrighted, making changes to it, and keeping the code to it completely in house while releasing it in a way t…

You forget that because the company cannot enforce copyright, I can just take whatever bits the company distributes to me and do what I please with them. I wouldn’t he opposed to a broad law requiring software companies to make buildable sources available for all software they use to deliver a product, but I doubt we’re that liberal yet. That is essentially what Stallman was asking for and the GPL is a means.

If I took iText, made changes to it, rebundled that behind a web service - that would be in violation of the AGPL. The thing that prevents that from happening is that the AGPL prevents it based on copyright.

It would be unreasonable to say that every web site out there or SaaS service needs to provide the source code to rebuild their site by someone else.

I will also point out the "write a law" would only apply to one country. Host it in another country and you could thumb your nose at the law. You would really want an international treaty such as the Berne Convention, or TRIPS, or WCT... which are implemented as copyright. Any changes to copyright would imply that that country is withdrawing from those treaties.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#545
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ai data is gathered from public and private sources. Unless that data is entirely private source, it's inappropriate to be able to copyright those derivitive works.

They are inspired though, not derivative. AI models contain no source data in a reproducible form (not that it really matters, but in case it is, they can’t).

Not really. It contains all kinds of copyrightable data. It's like a dictionary of phrases. Sire there are lots of generic ones, "a lot of", "this or that" and then there are novel ones "It is a truth universally acknowledged".

Your writing and artwork will contain these novel bits and if your accidentally string the right few together you're suddenly in a lot of trouble.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more example demonstrating the opposite - in EU the copyright law explicitly states that transferable copyrights for software get automatically transferred from employees to the company. Which suggests that for other types of copyrightable works and author/customer relationships it doesn't happen automatically.

Do you happen to have more reading material on said law? In Germany, you can't even transfer copyright. So yeah, anything you create that reaches the threshold of having a copyright, you own the copyright. Even as an employee. At the same time, you might not own the usage rights (Nutzungsrechte/Verwertungsrechte).

We might have a bit of miscommunication of what exactly is referred as "copyright", "transferring" and the way its translated in various languages. Wikipedia/Google translate suggests to me that generic name for copyright in German is "Urheberrecht" derived from author not copying, is that the problem?

By "copyrights" I am referring to all rights regulated by various copyright related laws not a specific subset of rights, including both the economic rights (all the useful stuff related to copying, redistributing, selling) and author's moral rights (can't be transferred, partially defined by national laws, stuff related to being author, right to be recognized as author and few other minor things).

Was able to find the European directive which has the point corresponding to what I was thinking about. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... Article 3, point 2 "Where a computer program is created by an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions given by his employer, the employer exclusively shall be entitled to exercise all economic rights in the program so created, unless otherwise provided by contract.".

Do you consider usage rights as something which isn't part of copyright? Or do you not consider act as result of which you stop owning "usage rights" but someone else gets them "transferring".

From what I understand, technically non of the European directives are laws, but each member country is supposed to make laws based on the directives.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further di…

>You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. That is a good point that a lot of people don't want to address. A lot of the 'creative' part of the process is actually being done by the software in the camera.

No, that's the opposite of my point: what the camera does is mechanical work, it is explicitly not creative.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#548
post #541
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing copyright allows a company to take something that is in the public domain, make changes to it and not release the changes . Yes, the GPL is a hack on the distribution of derivative works... but without those teeth to bite with and enforce, then nothing prevents one from taking some code that is not-copyrighted, making changes to it, and keeping the code to it completely in house while releasing it in a way t…

You forget that because the company cannot enforce copyright, I can just take whatever bits the company distributes to me and do what I please with them. I wouldn’t he opposed to a broad law requiring software companies to make buildable sources available for all software they use to deliver a product, but I doubt we’re that liberal yet. That is essentially what Stallman was asking for and the GPL is a means.

(many hours later) ... I'm going to point out from the printer story...

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

    And we just had to suffer with waiting.  It would take an hour or two to
    get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of the time.
    And only once in a while -- you'd wait an hour figuring "I know it's
    going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout," and
    then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact,
    nobody else had fixed it.  So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another
    half hour.  Then, you'd come back, and you'd see it jammed again -- before
    it got to your output.  It would print three minutes and be jammed
    thirty minutes.  Frustration up the whazzoo.  But the thing that made it 
    worse was knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his 
    own selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the software.  
    So, of course, we felt some resentment.

    And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a copy
    of that software.  So I was visiting there later, so I went to his
    office and I said, "Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer
    source code?"  And he said "No, I promised not to give you a
    copy." [Laughter]  I was stunned.  I was so -- I was angry, and I had no
    idea how I could do justice to it.  All I could think of was to turn
    around on my heel and walk out of his room.  Maybe I slammed the door.
    [Laughter] And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I was
    seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was
    important and affected a lot of people.

    Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure agreement,
    and it taught me an important lesson -- a lesson that's important because
    most programmers never learn it.  You see, this was my first encounter
    with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim.  I, and my whole
    lab, were the victims.  And the lesson it taught me was that
    non-disclosure agreements have victims.  They're not innocent.  They're
    not harmless.  Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement
    when they're invited to sign one.  And there's always some temptation --
    some goody they're going to get if they sign.  So, they make up excuses.
    They say, "Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why
    shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?"  They say, "This is the
    way it's always done.  Who am I to go against it?"  They say, "If I don't
    sign this, someone else will."  Various excuses to gag their consciences.

Nothing required Xerox to give Stallman the source code to the printer driver. And in a world without copyright, nothing would require Xerox to give Stallman the source code to the printer driver either. And it wasn't copyright that prevented Carnegie Mellon from giving him the source code - it was a separate contract - an NDA.

The four freedoms are guaranteed for open source because of copyright. Without copyright, the first freedom (with the access to the source code) for open source software is not possible. Copyright gives the author the ability to force others who use the software that they've licensed to be similarly open.

Consider this challenge - write a license on top of some public domain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software#Public-... ) work that requires that I follow it and that the work that I do provides the four freedoms - that would prevent me from taking the code and repackage it in my own binary in a way that I'm not obligated to disclose to you or that you wouldn't be able to replace with your own library.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#549
post #21

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…

No, it's not the same whatsoever as a monkey taking a photo, because a monkey taking a photo has the same originality as a human taking a photo. The monkey is not making a sophisticated mash up of copyrighted photos.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#550
This decision is completely wrongheaded, because AI is making a mash-up out of works which are copyrighted.

Works produced by AI are copyrightable, just not newly copyrightable the agent who is executing the AI.

If we could identify the "bill of materials" (specimens of training data which were relevant to the generation of a given image) then we could apply to it copyright notice consisting of the catenation of the individual copyright notices.

I think that if an artist operates a purely local model, and trains it only on their own art, then the result should absolutely by copyrightable by that artist.

It's no different from a binary executable being your copyright if you built it from sources that are your copyright. We don't squabble about compilers not being human.

Post reply on HN