6 ms·
> If he used an AI to help him, even substantially help him, and copyrighted it himself, that would be a non-story. Maybe a subtler story, but I wouldn't say n
by tshaddox 5y ago
> If he used an AI to help him, even substantially help him, and copyrighted it himself, that would be a non-story.
Maybe a subtler story, but I wouldn't say no story. It's still worth pondering how it works if a human can creatively develop an AI system that can then output essentially endless unique works. Can the human just submit applications for those works endlessly? Even in purely practical terms, will the copyright at some point just ban the human for excessive submissions?
And what if the AI system is open source or otherwise freely available? Can any human generate a new unique work and submit a copyright application for it? Is the mere curation work that the human applies to the AI system's output sufficient to receive a copyright on the work?
- ghaff 5y ago>Can any human generate a new unique work and submit a copyright application for it? Is the mere curation work that the human applies to the AI system's output sufficient to receive a copyright on the work? The short answer is that they don't need to submit anything. If they put their name on it, they're the putative copyright holder and it's up to someone else to prove they aren't. Copyright registration isn't required and is mostly related to be able to collect damages from others who violate your copyright.
- tshaddox 5y agoIf the work can be shown to have been created by an open source AI system, then I suspect it would be difficult to argue that you have an automatic copyright for the work, especially if you hadn’t published the work.