5 ms·

There is input from a human in the form of algorithmic programming and choice of training data

joe_the_user 5y ago
Where the work in question would fall within the law is another question. But it's definite that the US Copyright Office won't copyright a work it considers machine generated, contrary to the gp's claim and the (apparently) rewritten headline. IE, the processed used is not irrelevant.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I understand, but I disagree with the copyright office's decision. Why is there a distinction made between methods of creation, say if someone used Photoshop to create art vs someone who programmed some ML thing to spit out art of a certain style or genre (ie thisanimedoesnotexist) Where, exactly, does the line lie that was crossed?
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    I'm not a fan of copyright generally and sure the line might seem arbitrary. But if you consider for second, just one of the problems with copyrighting machine-generated works is that a machine could generate so much text it make thing so any author would be bound to infringe on some part of it, especially if the text was generated cleverly. Plus: you've replied to some point other than what I actually said twice now, what's up with that?
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I was simply disagreeing with the predicate that the argument is based on I understand your point about mass text generation as well, that's why I wonder where that line is that makes it "machine generated" in the eyes of the copyright office (although another commenter mentioned that this was admitted by the filer)
  - paxys 5y ago
    The copyright office did not have to judge at all. The author himself insisted that he had nothing to do with the creation and the machine did it by itself, which was obviously a lie.
lr4444lr 5y ago
That input and training data isn't what's being copyrighted.
ummonk 5y ago
Yes and that would potentially allow the (human) creator to get copyright on the creation.

Where the work in question would fall within the law is another question. But it's definite that the US Copyright Office won't copyright a work it considers machine generated, contrary to the gp's claim and the (apparently) rewritten headline. IE, the processed used is not irrelevant.

netizen-936824 5y ago
I understand, but I disagree with the copyright office's decision. Why is there a distinction made between methods of creation, say if someone used Photoshop to create art vs someone who programmed some ML thing to spit out art of a certain style or genre (ie thisanimedoesnotexist) Where, exactly, does the line lie that was crossed?
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of copyright generally and sure the line might seem arbitrary. But if you consider for second, just one of the problems with copyrighting machine-generated works is that a machine could generate so much text it make thing so any author would be bound to infringe on some part of it, especially if the text was generated cleverly. Plus: you've replied to some point other than what I actually said twice now, what's up with that?
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I was simply disagreeing with the predicate that the argument is based on I understand your point about mass text generation as well, that's why I wonder where that line is that makes it "machine generated" in the eyes of the copyright office (although another commenter mentioned that this was admitted by the filer)
- paxys 5y ago
  The copyright office did not have to judge at all. The author himself insisted that he had nothing to do with the creation and the machine did it by itself, which was obviously a lie.

lr4444lr 5y ago

That input and training data isn't what's being copyrighted.

ummonk 5y ago

Yes and that would potentially allow the (human) creator to get copyright on the creation.