Producers and studios will spend millions of protected free speech fighting this ruling.
A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection. The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI. Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.
This looks like a humongous loop hole that will probably be in court for years.
If you printed your book on a computer printer, is it still protected by copyright? If you set the parameters for a computer to create a new corporate logo, is it protected?
That trivializes the work of the photographer. S/he decided on the subject, composed the shot, decided on the speed of the shutter and lighting, presumably may have recomposed the final product. All human interaction; the camera merely copied what the human decided. Like writing, the human decided on the words, the order of the words, and the (attempted) meaning of the composition of the words. Copywritable.
Telling a computer to “write a story about an old man and the sea”: not copywritable.
Not arguing here. Maybe wagging a finger of admonishment. “Copyrights”, “patents” “free speech” etc. They are all creatures of law and The Law is, ultimately, what we say it is. Simply write The Law to say this or that and it is the law. Why don’t the people who build a bridge get paid for 70 years after their death to use the bridge? (the amount of time we’ll have to pay Billy Joel if we want to sing Piano Man. I think that’s current music copyright law) Because the law doesn’t say we have to. Sounds like a silly proposition but what makes it silly? The fact that we haven’t decided to make it that way. Besides, all kinds of silly things actually are The Law anyway.
But haven’t we all? It’s called “learning.” Besides. Like I said, just write the law to say: New material produced by an AI machine trained on copyrighted material doesn’t constitute a violation of copyrights under this law." Poof! Now it’s OK. Silly? Who’s got enough money to get what they want? Besides much of copyright law does not exist to be the economic, intellectual, & creative lubricant it’s intended to be. It’s main purpose is to allow the “rights holder” to get paid in near-perpetuity for work that’s already been paid for. Property Interests simply swapping property back and forth for the money that can be had and no work is needed to build or create anything new. Money fo’ nuthin’… D’oh! That’s copyrighted, sorry.
I get that it is not stated to trivialize. I am stating what many people have believed for decades.
The issue is AI is used dozens of times over to get what the artists want. The artists are going to push to have copyright. If you say it is the machine well so is the camera to a similar degree. So then is the brush. Go back to finger painting.
It is not trivializing. Art students are blasphemous.
Maybe but the changes are extreme so that might not matter. It bothers many artists in the meantime.
If they own the bridge they do. If the bridge was built with public money they don’t.
Before copyright law was established an author got paid only for as long as it took other printers to take the original and reprint it. Dickens and Poe made a decent living, but most of the sales of their works went into the pockets of others who simply bought one copy and had it typeset and printed it. So what should the term of “exclusivity” be? That’s what the law tries to figure out.
Disney famously got the term extended to an absurd length to protect its early works. Patents expire after 26 years (I think). What do you think the term should be?
All they need to do is to get the SCOTUS to declare AI chat bots “real people” just like corporations. That’s the precedent, a human invention declared a real human.
“How much for that” do the lobbyist of the word’s richest corporations need to spend? Public servants are cheap.
So who/what would own the newly-copyrighted AI-produced outcome? Does the AI own it? Which means AI is a “person” under the law. Next: As AI is “intelligent”, that makes it a “free person” under the US Constitution, Amendments XIII and XIV.
If the AI was “created” in the US, then it is, per Article XIV, a natural born citizen of the United States, and it has the “right” to vote, per Amendment XV.
I already know the legalese and the history you’re referring to. Has no bearing on my previous posts. None of this is a law of nature. I am not coming down on anybody’s side. E.A Poe’s or book publisher’s.
Quotin’ my azz outta context again. That ain’t me thinking up there. That’s future legislation or a court decision a la Rod Serling.
So who/what would own the newly-copyrighted AI-produced outcome?
How would I know? The Law hasn’t addressed any of this yet.
Does the AI own it? Which means AI is a “person” under the law. Next: As AI is “intelligent”, that makes it a “free person” under the US Constitution, Amendments XIII and XIV. If the AI was “created” in the US, then it is, per Article XIV, a natural born citizen of the United States, and it has the “right” to vote, per Amendment XV.
I’m sure The Law, as always, will in fact define these things. That’s what it’s there for.
Depends on how varied the re-iteration is. That is often a matter for the courts. A judge, who will render a legal decision on what is mostly a subjective matter. Or a Jury. Their decision is often dependent upon which party in the lawsuit they know better or like better. Still comes down to “What we say it is.”
If it is my patent, it should continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration.
I suppose it comes down to what relationships one can see. It is not really a question of “fair use” since the purpose would not come within fair use, but how recognizable is the connection.