3 ms·
Does anyone have cites on litigation specific to generative works? The nearest neighbor precedent I'm aware of is the dismissal of Authors Guild v Google
by ajmarcic 6y ago
Does anyone have cites on litigation specific to generative works?
The nearest neighbor precedent I'm aware of is the dismissal of Authors Guild v Google
- qchris 6y agoI'm not sure about links directly to court cases, but here's a couple different general-consumption articles from the last few years that address this sort of thing. I'm hopeful I didn't convey that the consensus on the subject is particularly solid... [1] https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates-a-work-of-art-who-owns-the-rights-to-it/ https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates... [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-experts-grapple-copyright-when-it-comes-works-created-using https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-ex...
- ajmarcic 6y agoThanks for the links. I know little on the topic. It may be a while before a litigious content owner identifies their work as having contributed to another generated one. I have yet to see in-your-face examples being monetized. From a technical standpoint using copyrighted text to train a text translator is similar to using copyrighted movies to train a movie generator. Which of these are acceptable?