3 ms·
> I think they meant “when the output of the machine is significantly original/transformed (i.e. is a new creative work).” No; the author spends some time asse
by b3morales 5y ago
> I think they meant “when the output of the machine is significantly original/transformed (i.e. is a new creative work).”
No; the author spends some time asserting that the output of a machine is inherently not a creative work:
> Machine-generated code is not a derivative work
> the argument that the outputs of GitHub Copilot are derivative works of the training data is based on the assumption that a machine can produce works. This assumption is wrong and counterproductive.
> This means that machine-generated code like that of GitHub Copilot is not a work under copyright law at all
- mthoms 5y agoThe machine is performing some sort of transformation. Whether you want to call that a "(creative) work" or not is irrelevant to the point I was making: The machine is doing something to the input, and that makes the 'cp' comment I replied to kind of silly. I think we can assume the author doesn't believe that piping bytes through the 'cp' command automatically removes copyright (as the person I replied to suggested).
- CameronNemo 5y agoBut how much of a transformation qualifies as a new work rather than a derivative?