3 ms·

They are different by your intended use of the tool and whether the work is judged to be authored by you or by the tool, not by some specific aspect of technolo

They are different by your intended use of the tool and whether the work is judged to be authored by you or by the tool, not by some specific aspect of technology or implementation. Do you intend to prepare your thoughts as written word, and you use technology to write those thoughts rapidly? Then that’s probably fine. Do you intend to prepare written works written by algorithm, software, or technology, to a degree that the work can no longer be reasonably considered the creative output of a tool-assisted human and is now instead the creative output of a human-assisted tool? Then that’s probably not fine. If you want another way to look at this problem, imagine that our society grants algorithms copyright over the works they produce with our assistance, while granting us copyright of the works we produce with the assistance of algorithms, and that the law demands all algorithms be credited (CC-AT) when their copyrighted works are republished by humans. Copyright law has significant experience studying the problems of entangled and commingled ownership of works, but it’s too soon for US society to grant copyright to algorithms over their works, and so this law is all we get today.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
You're still not providing any meaningful distinction between the two. How do you actually distinguish between a tool-assisted human and a human-assisted tool? What's the test and where is that written in the legislation? > If you want another way to look at this problem, imagine that out society grants algorithms copyright over the works they produce with our assistance, while granting us copyright of the works we produce with the assistance of algorithms, and that the law demands all algorithms be credited (CC-AT) when their copyrighted works are republished by humans. That's just restating the question, not answering it. And the hairy mess used for copyright is not a very promising thing to aspire to.
- Slartie 7y ago
  > How do you actually distinguish between a tool-assisted human and a human-assisted tool? What's the test and where is that written in the legislation? That will probably be distinguished between by a judge looking at all the facts that apply to a specific case, and making up a decision. Details such as these are the reason why there's a justice system with actual humans in it and not just some software bot calling shots by following if-then-else statements written in law documents.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

You're still not providing any meaningful distinction between the two. How do you actually distinguish between a tool-assisted human and a human-assisted tool? What's the test and where is that written in the legislation? > If you want another way to look at this problem, imagine that out society grants algorithms copyright over the works they produce with our assistance, while granting us copyright of the works we produce with the assistance of algorithms, and that the law demands all algorithms be credited (CC-AT) when their copyrighted works are republished by humans. That's just restating the question, not answering it. And the hairy mess used for copyright is not a very promising thing to aspire to.

Slartie 7y ago
> How do you actually distinguish between a tool-assisted human and a human-assisted tool? What's the test and where is that written in the legislation? That will probably be distinguished between by a judge looking at all the facts that apply to a specific case, and making up a decision. Details such as these are the reason why there's a justice system with actual humans in it and not just some software bot calling shots by following if-then-else statements written in law documents.