3 ms·
While I can agree that it would have been better for the creator of the algorithm to be credited given that his contributions were a big part of what made the a
by contravariant 8y ago
While I can agree that it would have been better for the creator of the algorithm to be credited given that his contributions were a big part of what made the artwork possible, I can't really come up with a convincing argument that he should have any legal rights over the artwork (including the right to be credited). I fear it would set a dangerous precedent if using particular software grants the creator of the software rights over the result.
Of course you require some degree of artistic input for it to be able to count as a separate work, but in my opinion selecting a particular image out of a (nigh infinite) generated set of images should still count.
- yayana 8y agoI think the lack of credit is fraud towards the purchaser. Since this was a first, the noteriety of it should be good enough for it to be a good investment.. But did the buyer know they were buying the first drop of water at the beginning of the rain season? I think there would be an expectation on the brand of the producers serving as a reputation and limit on the supply of "real" works. But the engineer doing a project with IKEA would make "realer" works.