4 ms·

Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? The company is therefore not party to the ip infringement case. Now as an employee my ip belongs to my e

Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? The company is therefore not party to the ip infringement case. Now as an employee my ip belongs to my employer, but I am paid for this. A robot couldn't enter into a contract without 1) being paid (consideration) or 2) the intention to create a contract. Therefore if robots are to assign copyright they are going to need training about contracts.

hashmal 7y ago
> Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? I would consider the robot to be a kind of pencil or typewriter.
wpietri 7y ago
Only if the robot has its own corporate entity. Otherwise, like any machine, it's not a person under the law.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  Then how could it produce a copyrightable work? The Berne convention only applies to 'Nationals and residents' of a country. Therefore if a court has held that the robot produced copyrighted material, then the robot must be a person.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Because under the law, it didn't produce the work. Look at all the AI-driven visual art we're seeing happen. Copyright goes to the artist who set up the system and then selected the work, because that's the actual creative activity. Creators have always used tools. The tool isn't what gets copyright, no matter how elaborate the tools. Once the tools have consciousness, drive, and self-determination, we might think otherwise. But that's not where we are today.
jcranmer 7y ago
I don't know about Chinese law, but the US concept is "work made for hire". This is satisfied by one of two alternatives, the first being "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." If you believe that an AI has sufficient personhood to be capable of authorship, then it is not unreasonable to presume that it is being employed by whomever is running it. In the US, there are three factors that govern whether or not someone is an employee. These are: > Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work. > Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants. > Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee’s payment. Looking at those factors, it is really hard to argue that an AI is not an employee, as far as US law is concerned.
- lozenge 7y ago
  This is incorrect, "work for hire" only helps determine who owns the copyright on something, not whether that thing is actually copyrightable.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    GP is suggesting that the copyright should belong with the robot, I'm pointing out that work for hire would mean that it does not belong with the robot.
    - jimnotgym 7y ago
      Surely it would fall foul of anti-slavery legislation though? Unless the Robot is paid?
      - Smoosh 7y ago
        Perhaps more analogous to employing a minor (without pay). But who is the guardian of the robot who can approve their employment?
koboll 7y ago
>Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? The company is therefore not party to the ip infringement case. A series of if/else blocks is not a "robot", or a legal person in any sense, any more than a paintbrush or a saxophone is.
- joshspankit 7y ago
  You’re being reductionist. At a certain point humans could also be argued as being composed of if/else blocks.
awb 7y ago
While it's fun to think of AI as humanoid, it's not. It's just a new kind of software. A robot duck that can sit on a nest, make duck sounds and get food for the babies is still a robot, not a duck. Even punting in the whole consciousness debate, I think this example is easier because we generally think of ducks as simply living to reproduce and if a robot isn't organically reproducing and passing genetic material onto it's offspring, it's missing a huge part of what it is to be a duck.
- A_Parr 7y ago
  Neuter a duck and it's a robot, got it. Human level AI just got a lot easier to create.

hashmal 7y ago

> Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? I would consider the robot to be a kind of pencil or typewriter.

wpietri 7y ago

Only if the robot has its own corporate entity. Otherwise, like any machine, it's not a person under the law.

jimnotgym 7y ago
Then how could it produce a copyrightable work? The Berne convention only applies to 'Nationals and residents' of a country. Therefore if a court has held that the robot produced copyrighted material, then the robot must be a person.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Because under the law, it didn't produce the work. Look at all the AI-driven visual art we're seeing happen. Copyright goes to the artist who set up the system and then selected the work, because that's the actual creative activity. Creators have always used tools. The tool isn't what gets copyright, no matter how elaborate the tools. Once the tools have consciousness, drive, and self-determination, we might think otherwise. But that's not where we are today.

jcranmer 7y ago

I don't know about Chinese law, but the US concept is "work made for hire". This is satisfied by one of two alternatives, the first being "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." If you believe that an AI has sufficient personhood to be capable of authorship, then it is not unreasonable to presume that it is being employed by whomever is running it. In the US, there are three factors that govern whether or not someone is an employee. These are: > Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work. > Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants. > Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee’s payment. Looking at those factors, it is really hard to argue that an AI is not an employee, as far as US law is concerned.

lozenge 7y ago
This is incorrect, "work for hire" only helps determine who owns the copyright on something, not whether that thing is actually copyrightable.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  GP is suggesting that the copyright should belong with the robot, I'm pointing out that work for hire would mean that it does not belong with the robot.
  - jimnotgym 7y ago
    Surely it would fall foul of anti-slavery legislation though? Unless the Robot is paid?
    - Smoosh 7y ago
      Perhaps more analogous to employing a minor (without pay). But who is the guardian of the robot who can approve their employment?

koboll 7y ago

>Shouldn't the copyright therefore belong to the robot? The company is therefore not party to the ip infringement case. A series of if/else blocks is not a "robot", or a legal person in any sense, any more than a paintbrush or a saxophone is.

joshspankit 7y ago
You’re being reductionist. At a certain point humans could also be argued as being composed of if/else blocks.

awb 7y ago

While it's fun to think of AI as humanoid, it's not. It's just a new kind of software. A robot duck that can sit on a nest, make duck sounds and get food for the babies is still a robot, not a duck. Even punting in the whole consciousness debate, I think this example is easier because we generally think of ducks as simply living to reproduce and if a robot isn't organically reproducing and passing genetic material onto it's offspring, it's missing a huge part of what it is to be a duck.

A_Parr 7y ago
Neuter a duck and it's a robot, got it. Human level AI just got a lot easier to create.