3 ms·

When a person creates X as part of their job, the company owns the IP. When an AI creates X as part of its job, the company owns the IP. When a person creates X

When a person creates X as part of their job, the company owns the IP. When an AI creates X as part of its job, the company owns the IP. When a person creates X on their own, they own the IP. When an AI creates X on its own... we aren't there yet.

shmerl 7y ago
> When an AI creates X as part of its job, the company owns the IP I'd say that depends. If something is created by AI randomly, owners of the AI didn't create it. It's all about the level of autonomy. If AI simply follows instructions and is a dummy tool - then yeah. But if it does stuff on its own and isn't a conveyor of the owners creative intent - then owners of the AI didn't make it, they shouldn't own the result. And besides, if you claim it's doing it as "part of the job" and that's why owners of the AI should get it, then give the AI job related rights first as well ;)
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Shouldn't it depend on who ran the AI? If I use the shell to generate a very long random number, I'd expect the output to belong to me.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    First of all, a number can't belong to anyone. Also, consider a generative algorithm, that creates every possible combination. Do you expect to potentially own everything that wasn't yet created? Because at some point, that algorithm will get to it. Secondly, no, it doesn't depend on who run the AI. Because running the AI isn't called creating the result. The one who run it didn't provide creative input. How is it different from telling someone else "go create"? You didn't create the result either. Another point - copyright by definition is given as an incentive to create. I don't see much need for an incentive to press a button and do nothing after that.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      > First of all, a number can't belong to anyone. My understanding is that's not true, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number. I agree it's stupid but not up to me. > Also, consider a generative algorithm, that creates every possible combination. Do you expect to potentially own everything that wasn't yet created? Because at some point, that algorithm will get to it. Well yes, given infinite time, you could write a program to generate every possible sentence. If I saved those sentences on an infinitely large hard drive, yes, I would expect to own the rights to each one. Note, that doesn't mean I'd be able to sue anyone else who ever speaks. The color of bits [0] matters. IMO, the alternative of assigning copyright to the algorithm's creator gets really messy. If an author uses GPT-2 for writing inspiration[1], and at some point, they copy out a GPT-2 paragraph verbatim, does the author not own that paragraph? Same question for music which incorporates AI-generated samples (or just randomly generated samples). --- [0]: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 [1]: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/30/20840194/ai-art-fiction-writing-language-gpt-2 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/30/20840194/ai-art...
      - shmerl 7y ago
        > Well yes, given infinite time, you could write a program to generate every possible sentence. If I saved those sentences on an infinitely large hard drive, yes, I would expect to own the rights to each one. No, you should not expect it. Because the process wasn't creative. And there is no incentive needed for it either, because it's automated. Check again the definition of copyright, and why it's given in the first place. That should be the way to analyze, whether it's applicable or not.

shmerl 7y ago

> When an AI creates X as part of its job, the company owns the IP I'd say that depends. If something is created by AI randomly, owners of the AI didn't create it. It's all about the level of autonomy. If AI simply follows instructions and is a dummy tool - then yeah. But if it does stuff on its own and isn't a conveyor of the owners creative intent - then owners of the AI didn't make it, they shouldn't own the result. And besides, if you claim it's doing it as "part of the job" and that's why owners of the AI should get it, then give the AI job related rights first as well ;)

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Shouldn't it depend on who ran the AI? If I use the shell to generate a very long random number, I'd expect the output to belong to me.
- shmerl 7y ago
  First of all, a number can't belong to anyone. Also, consider a generative algorithm, that creates every possible combination. Do you expect to potentially own everything that wasn't yet created? Because at some point, that algorithm will get to it. Secondly, no, it doesn't depend on who run the AI. Because running the AI isn't called creating the result. The one who run it didn't provide creative input. How is it different from telling someone else "go create"? You didn't create the result either. Another point - copyright by definition is given as an incentive to create. I don't see much need for an incentive to press a button and do nothing after that.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > First of all, a number can't belong to anyone. My understanding is that's not true, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number. I agree it's stupid but not up to me. > Also, consider a generative algorithm, that creates every possible combination. Do you expect to potentially own everything that wasn't yet created? Because at some point, that algorithm will get to it. Well yes, given infinite time, you could write a program to generate every possible sentence. If I saved those sentences on an infinitely large hard drive, yes, I would expect to own the rights to each one. Note, that doesn't mean I'd be able to sue anyone else who ever speaks. The color of bits [0] matters. IMO, the alternative of assigning copyright to the algorithm's creator gets really messy. If an author uses GPT-2 for writing inspiration[1], and at some point, they copy out a GPT-2 paragraph verbatim, does the author not own that paragraph? Same question for music which incorporates AI-generated samples (or just randomly generated samples). --- [0]: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 [1]: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/30/20840194/ai-art-fiction-writing-language-gpt-2 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/30/20840194/ai-art...
    - shmerl 7y ago
      > Well yes, given infinite time, you could write a program to generate every possible sentence. If I saved those sentences on an infinitely large hard drive, yes, I would expect to own the rights to each one. No, you should not expect it. Because the process wasn't creative. And there is no incentive needed for it either, because it's automated. Check again the definition of copyright, and why it's given in the first place. That should be the way to analyze, whether it's applicable or not.