7 ms·

This seems like a good thing to me, because with "AI-generated works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of images and essentially try to pre-c

This seems like a good thing to me, because with "AI-generated works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of images and essentially try to pre-copyright a lot of content, so you can then sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. Something similar could be done with programming code and transformers. We already have a problem with copyright lasting long after the original author(s) are dead...

odsb 5y ago
Can you not programmatically claim "Human Ownership", like as long as you don't have to be physically present I think you can still achieve what you are saying. I guess what is really "human ownership", maybe i will have to read the article :)
Teever 5y ago
This seems like a bad thing to me, because with "AI-generated works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of images and essentially try to pre-copyleft a lot of content, so you could sleep easy knowing that it was no longer possible to sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. Something similar could be done with programming code and transformers. We already have a problem with copyright lasting long after the original author(s) are dead...
charcircuit 5y ago
>then sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. If people didn't copy your work, but instead created it themself you can't (read shouldn't be able to) sue them. Copyright law protects people from making copies of your work. If someone didn't copy from you copyright law doesn't apply.
- staticman2 5y ago
  I just posted the same thing, but good luck proving a negetive. (That you never viewed a certain work publically available on a certain web site.) That's certainly a difficulty that could cause you to settle with a bad actor.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    If someone is doing a meme of copyrighting everything I don't think it would be hard to see through what's going on.
staticman2 5y ago
Technically you need to copy to infringe copyright, so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright. The issue is one of credibility. Nobody would believe me if I said I had cooincidentally recreated Nowhere Man but with a randomly generated library perhaps you could credibly show it was a coincidence. That said people could be intimidated by legal fees and the possibility of losing and settle with a bad actor running this sort of scam.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright. You would need to prove that you had never heard it. This is non-trivial. Most recent high-profile music copyright cases do not center on precise reproductions, but on music that "contains elements of" another piece of music.
  - greiskul 5y ago
    Yes, but with existing music, current lawsuits use the fact that the music under dispute was playing on radios, nightclubs, tv, etc. So there is the possibility of the other artist having heard of it. If the music is stuck inside of a gigantic database that nobody has accessed, it becomes much easier to prove that you in fact never heard it.
  - nnvvhh 5y ago
    You're mistaken about who has the burden to prove actual copying. The person alleging infringement has to show that the defendant copied the work.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      Maybe in the courts, but you can get your youtube channel shutdown or even be permanently kicked off your ISP (and the internet, unless you have more than one option) based on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations that you've violated copyright
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
autoexec 5y ago
I agree that for now this is a good idea, but once the robots can ask for it, this is going to have to change. Hopefully by the time we're working on securing rights for bots we'll have long fixed our broken copyright system so that it once again provides limited protections for creators and isn't just a perpetual revenue stream generator for corporations.
hedora 5y ago
I'd copyright all natural numbers if they'd let me. The system is clearly rigged!

odsb 5y ago

Can you not programmatically claim "Human Ownership", like as long as you don't have to be physically present I think you can still achieve what you are saying. I guess what is really "human ownership", maybe i will have to read the article :)

Teever 5y ago

This seems like a bad thing to me, because with "AI-generated works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of images and essentially try to pre-copyleft a lot of content, so you could sleep easy knowing that it was no longer possible to sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. Something similar could be done with programming code and transformers. We already have a problem with copyright lasting long after the original author(s) are dead...

charcircuit 5y ago

>then sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. If people didn't copy your work, but instead created it themself you can't (read shouldn't be able to) sue them. Copyright law protects people from making copies of your work. If someone didn't copy from you copyright law doesn't apply.

staticman2 5y ago
I just posted the same thing, but good luck proving a negetive. (That you never viewed a certain work publically available on a certain web site.) That's certainly a difficulty that could cause you to settle with a bad actor.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  If someone is doing a meme of copyrighting everything I don't think it would be hard to see through what's going on.

staticman2 5y ago

Technically you need to copy to infringe copyright, so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright. The issue is one of credibility. Nobody would believe me if I said I had cooincidentally recreated Nowhere Man but with a randomly generated library perhaps you could credibly show it was a coincidence. That said people could be intimidated by legal fees and the possibility of losing and settle with a bad actor running this sort of scam.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright. You would need to prove that you had never heard it. This is non-trivial. Most recent high-profile music copyright cases do not center on precise reproductions, but on music that "contains elements of" another piece of music.
- greiskul 5y ago
  Yes, but with existing music, current lawsuits use the fact that the music under dispute was playing on radios, nightclubs, tv, etc. So there is the possibility of the other artist having heard of it. If the music is stuck inside of a gigantic database that nobody has accessed, it becomes much easier to prove that you in fact never heard it.
- nnvvhh 5y ago
  You're mistaken about who has the burden to prove actual copying. The person alleging infringement has to show that the defendant copied the work.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Maybe in the courts, but you can get your youtube channel shutdown or even be permanently kicked off your ISP (and the internet, unless you have more than one option) based on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations that you've violated copyright

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

autoexec 5y ago

I agree that for now this is a good idea, but once the robots can ask for it, this is going to have to change. Hopefully by the time we're working on securing rights for bots we'll have long fixed our broken copyright system so that it once again provides limited protections for creators and isn't just a perpetual revenue stream generator for corporations.

hedora 5y ago

I'd copyright all natural numbers if they'd let me. The system is clearly rigged!