5 ms·

> If the AI created the tracks, why does the company own the copyright Uh, do you think there's a sentient being here? Its just a relatively simple algorithm h

> If the AI created the tracks, why does the company own the copyright Uh, do you think there's a sentient being here? Its just a relatively simple algorithm here (at least compared to sci-fi style AI), the same kind of thing that decides how to autofix colors in photos or do a transform in photoshop. Dynamic music generation has been a thing since at least the 80s. I think I had an Apple// program that did this. >works created by a non-human are not subject to U.S. copyright I'd like to see you prove some silly music generator is on the equal footing of a living and intelligent animal to any court. I can't imagine you not being laughed out of courtroom.

DennisP 11y ago
The program wouldn't own the copyright, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the company which made the program would own the copyright. It could end up public domain. E.g. the recently infamous selfie by a monkey was ruled public domain, having been produced by a non-human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie
- bpicolo 11y ago
  Software expressly created by a human here.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Doesn't hold up. Library of Babel and the Universal Slideshow would be able to claim copyright on all photographs and literature because all photographs and all literature that ever will be or ever was is contained within their corpus/gallery. Every picture you've ever taken, the Universal Slideshow already contains that picture. The picture of your birth, every memorable moment of your life, and every possible variation of your death. [0] http://libraryofbabel.info/ http://libraryofbabel.info/ [1] https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/slideshow.html https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/slideshow.html
    - tdb7893 11y ago
      They probably would only have copyright over what they create, not everything they could create
      - Nadya 11y ago
        Everything is already created. In regards to the Library of Babel, you can even search the library to verify this. (There is an extended Library that contains entire novels to be searched - the web version is a bit smaller/limited to pages.) It's already there it just needs to be found. That's the entire point!
        level3 11y ago
        This is a false claim. The Library of Babel is far from complete; the site itself only claims completion up to 3200-character texts. And that's limited only to lower-case alphabetic letters, periods, commas, and spaces. So there is still a vast amount of possible texts that haven't yet been created.
        anigbrowl 11y ago
        Irrelevant. It includes numerous works within those constraints that would ordinarily be subject to copyright. I tried it with a variety of short poems I know, both in and out of copyright, so there's more than enough amterial here for a test case, even though it doesn't include all possible material.
        Nadya 11y ago
        The Library of Babel that is online has those limits, yes. Which is why I explicitly mentioned I wasn't referring to the website. >(There is an extended Library that contains entire novels to be searched - the web version is a bit smaller/limited to pages.) The creator has variations of the code that aren't online. For example, lower-case alphabetical letters was a choice to "remain true to the original concept" but a base64 variation that allows for capital letters is possible. Furthermore - searching for entire books rather than being limited to 3,200 characters is also possible. Also other languages would also be possible but require further variations of the code. It's just having this work on the web to a website that sees 30-40k daily visitors because the algorithm isn't fast enough to meet those demands. [0] https://libraryofbabel.info/forum/?bbp_user=1&bbp_reps=1&paged=22 https://libraryofbabel.info/forum/?bbp_user=1&bbp_reps=1&pag... E: Rate limited in posts. My reply to the below is as follows: Your claims only hold for the web version. I was not speaking of the web version. So you are explicitly wrong. There is a version of the library that is not limited to those characters, that is not limited to lowercase Latin alphabet, and is not limited to being searched 3,200 characters at a time. So what are you contending by making such statements? Yes. The web version is held to those limits. Which is why I explicitly mentioned I was not referring to the web version. Your claims only hold against the web version. So I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make here. E2: I hate how HN rate limits like this. :) I'll concede that. Does ASCII art of a Chinese character represent the same information as the Chinese character? That's stretching things so I'm not making that as a counterpoint - but more of a thought experiment. For example: https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?ygofnzdyjijlsc299 https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?ygofnzdyjijlsc299
- lifeformed 11y ago
  I don't get that monkey selfie ruling. If the photographer deliberately gave the monkey a camera to take pictures, shouldn't the photographer be the owner of it? If the monkey isn't a legal entity, why is it considered the creator? If I dropped my camera on the floor and the button got pressed, is the floor now the creator of the image? If I set the automatic-timer function on my camera, is the timer mechanism now the creator of the image?
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
There is no point in the process where a human puts a creative stamp on the result. Your chiptunes did. This is effectively a fancy PRNG tuned to create appealing patterns. Copyright doesn't apply to non-creative works.
- m1sta_ 11y ago
  The author of the work created the scenario which resulted in the work. There was intent, effort, and creativity involved in this.
scotty79 11y ago
> the same kind of thing that decides how to autofix colors in photos or do a transform in photoshop Why doesn't then Adobe own result of whatever "autofix colors" produces?
- anentropic 11y ago
  exactly

DennisP 11y ago

The program wouldn't own the copyright, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the company which made the program would own the copyright. It could end up public domain. E.g. the recently infamous selfie by a monkey was ruled public domain, having been produced by a non-human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie

bpicolo 11y ago
Software expressly created by a human here.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Doesn't hold up. Library of Babel and the Universal Slideshow would be able to claim copyright on all photographs and literature because all photographs and all literature that ever will be or ever was is contained within their corpus/gallery. Every picture you've ever taken, the Universal Slideshow already contains that picture. The picture of your birth, every memorable moment of your life, and every possible variation of your death. [0] http://libraryofbabel.info/ http://libraryofbabel.info/ [1] https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/slideshow.html https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/slideshow.html
  - tdb7893 11y ago
    They probably would only have copyright over what they create, not everything they could create
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Everything is already created. In regards to the Library of Babel, you can even search the library to verify this. (There is an extended Library that contains entire novels to be searched - the web version is a bit smaller/limited to pages.) It's already there it just needs to be found. That's the entire point!
      - level3 11y ago
        This is a false claim. The Library of Babel is far from complete; the site itself only claims completion up to 3200-character texts. And that's limited only to lower-case alphabetic letters, periods, commas, and spaces. So there is still a vast amount of possible texts that haven't yet been created.
        anigbrowl 11y ago
        Irrelevant. It includes numerous works within those constraints that would ordinarily be subject to copyright. I tried it with a variety of short poems I know, both in and out of copyright, so there's more than enough amterial here for a test case, even though it doesn't include all possible material.
        Nadya 11y ago
        The Library of Babel that is online has those limits, yes. Which is why I explicitly mentioned I wasn't referring to the website. >(There is an extended Library that contains entire novels to be searched - the web version is a bit smaller/limited to pages.) The creator has variations of the code that aren't online. For example, lower-case alphabetical letters was a choice to "remain true to the original concept" but a base64 variation that allows for capital letters is possible. Furthermore - searching for entire books rather than being limited to 3,200 characters is also possible. Also other languages would also be possible but require further variations of the code. It's just having this work on the web to a website that sees 30-40k daily visitors because the algorithm isn't fast enough to meet those demands. [0] https://libraryofbabel.info/forum/?bbp_user=1&bbp_reps=1&paged=22 https://libraryofbabel.info/forum/?bbp_user=1&bbp_reps=1&pag... E: Rate limited in posts. My reply to the below is as follows: Your claims only hold for the web version. I was not speaking of the web version. So you are explicitly wrong. There is a version of the library that is not limited to those characters, that is not limited to lowercase Latin alphabet, and is not limited to being searched 3,200 characters at a time. So what are you contending by making such statements? Yes. The web version is held to those limits. Which is why I explicitly mentioned I was not referring to the web version. Your claims only hold against the web version. So I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make here. E2: I hate how HN rate limits like this. :) I'll concede that. Does ASCII art of a Chinese character represent the same information as the Chinese character? That's stretching things so I'm not making that as a counterpoint - but more of a thought experiment. For example: https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?ygofnzdyjijlsc299 https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?ygofnzdyjijlsc299
lifeformed 11y ago
I don't get that monkey selfie ruling. If the photographer deliberately gave the monkey a camera to take pictures, shouldn't the photographer be the owner of it? If the monkey isn't a legal entity, why is it considered the creator? If I dropped my camera on the floor and the button got pressed, is the floor now the creator of the image? If I set the automatic-timer function on my camera, is the timer mechanism now the creator of the image?

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago

There is no point in the process where a human puts a creative stamp on the result. Your chiptunes did. This is effectively a fancy PRNG tuned to create appealing patterns. Copyright doesn't apply to non-creative works.

m1sta_ 11y ago
The author of the work created the scenario which resulted in the work. There was intent, effort, and creativity involved in this.

scotty79 11y ago

> the same kind of thing that decides how to autofix colors in photos or do a transform in photoshop Why doesn't then Adobe own result of whatever "autofix colors" produces?

anentropic 11y ago
exactly