3 ms·

But if you can't copyright something that was created via automation (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-authorship-fight-u-s-copyright-offic

But if you can't copyright something that was created via automation (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-authorship-fight-u-s-copyright-office/id=146253/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-author...), does this even matter?

lbotos 5y ago
You are missing the crux of that argument: "Thaler listed Creativity Machine as the author of the work" You cannot claim that the AI was the creator.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Good luck proving that these songs were not created via automation in court - or that the claimant did not create the melody via automation for that matter. Wouldn't most electronic music fall under that definition?
horsawlarway 5y ago
You absolutely can copywrite works created via automation, you just still have to list a human as the author. Which makes a lot of sense to me - Someone had to set up the automation with the intent to create a copy writable work, and copywrite often has built in expirations based on a window of time after the death of the author. Hard to make that sane if you're listing a computer program as the author - when does it die?
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Even if you assign the copyright to a human and not a machine, you need a minimal amount of creativity to qualify for copyright, eg phone books can't be copyrighted. A "phone book" of every melody of a certain length is probably(?) not copyrightable either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_....
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    No real disagreement from me - I'm just saying that there's absolutely nothing preventing you from using automation to create copywrite-able works. People keep throwing that article around, and there seems to be a profound misunderstanding about what was determined there - automation is fine. Listing a machine as the author is not.
  - viccuad 5y ago
    The linked TED talk on the article explains it nicely. A phone book is created with a finite set (numbers,letters, words in English), but that finite set can be used to produce an infinite set. You can always produce a new result by appending to previous result. In contrast, a musical melody is created by a finite set, and is bracketed by a duration. You can't keep adding more notes to a composition without extending its duration. Doing so makes it non melodic. If you do it enough, it becomes noise (white noise, pink noise..)
- nwsm 5y ago
  I certainly agree that the author of an automation deserves credit/copyright for its output. But imagine I build something that spits out as many binary sequences as possible. Do I then have a copyright to all the "works" that can be interpreted from it in various data formats I may have accidentally met? This question is about intention, not authorship.
kube-system 5y ago
You’re missing the point of what the court is saying. The court is saying “the [typewriter] didn’t write the book, you wrote the book using a [typewriter]” Replace [typewriter] with any technology.

lbotos 5y ago

You are missing the crux of that argument: "Thaler listed Creativity Machine as the author of the work" You cannot claim that the AI was the creator.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

Good luck proving that these songs were not created via automation in court - or that the claimant did not create the melody via automation for that matter. Wouldn't most electronic music fall under that definition?

horsawlarway 5y ago

You absolutely can copywrite works created via automation, you just still have to list a human as the author. Which makes a lot of sense to me - Someone had to set up the automation with the intent to create a copy writable work, and copywrite often has built in expirations based on a window of time after the death of the author. Hard to make that sane if you're listing a computer program as the author - when does it die?

roywiggins 5y ago
Even if you assign the copyright to a human and not a machine, you need a minimal amount of creativity to qualify for copyright, eg phone books can't be copyrighted. A "phone book" of every melody of a certain length is probably(?) not copyrightable either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_....
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  No real disagreement from me - I'm just saying that there's absolutely nothing preventing you from using automation to create copywrite-able works. People keep throwing that article around, and there seems to be a profound misunderstanding about what was determined there - automation is fine. Listing a machine as the author is not.
- viccuad 5y ago
  The linked TED talk on the article explains it nicely. A phone book is created with a finite set (numbers,letters, words in English), but that finite set can be used to produce an infinite set. You can always produce a new result by appending to previous result. In contrast, a musical melody is created by a finite set, and is bracketed by a duration. You can't keep adding more notes to a composition without extending its duration. Doing so makes it non melodic. If you do it enough, it becomes noise (white noise, pink noise..)
nwsm 5y ago
I certainly agree that the author of an automation deserves credit/copyright for its output. But imagine I build something that spits out as many binary sequences as possible. Do I then have a copyright to all the "works" that can be interpreted from it in various data formats I may have accidentally met? This question is about intention, not authorship.

kube-system 5y ago

You’re missing the point of what the court is saying. The court is saying “the [typewriter] didn’t write the book, you wrote the book using a [typewriter]” Replace [typewriter] with any technology.