5 ms·

Some interesting legality here, if these photos are really "taken by chickens" then they can't be copyrighted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyr

Some interesting legality here, if these photos are really "taken by chickens" then they can't be copyrighted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... However, if this counts as being "taken by chickens" then it also implies that when a burglar triggers a motion-activated camera, the burglar owns the rights to the image.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago
>The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function [...] No, per the description and your legal context, the chickens are not taking the pictures.
- BarryMilo 4y ago
  You also don't own the copyright for pictures randomly generated by computers, presumably this applies to chicken randomization as well.
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    -randomly You don’t own the copyright for any picture generated by a computer, whether random or intentional
    - batch12 4y ago
      How does that apply to 'upscaled' video?
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        That would be a derivative work. Original copyright applies.
    - BalinKing 4y ago
      Out of curiosity, is this true even if you wrote the program that generates the image?
      - altairprime 4y ago
        Generally, yes, if the output is perceptually varied each run. Generally, no, if the output is perceptually static each run. The law generally won’t help you narrow down where the exact line is between those two, as that’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
    - BarryMilo 4y ago
      Good point, if I believe the other commenter, the image only needs to be varied, randomization is only one way to achieve this. That said, chicken can't own copyright, and they are the author, therefore no one owns the copyright.
    - popcube 4y ago
      but artists use computer for their artwork in a long time?
      - joshspankit 4y ago
        When it’s used like a tool, it’s considered the same as a chisel or a paint brush: the tool does not create the art, the artist makes the art by using the tool. It’s when then computer creates the art itself that it becomes the artist
  - r00tanon 4y ago
    Well, presumably, if it is your computer, running your program, using your equipment, you've got the copyright until your computer gains consciousness and a lawyer capable of filing a lawsuit.
    - BarryMilo 4y ago
      Not even, no. There was a famous case recently about this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Copyright%20Office%20(USCO,ruling%2C%20which%20found%20his%20A.I https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic.... The problem isn't really about using it yourself, it's that people don't need to ask your permission to use it, therefore you can't (easily) profit from it. Possibly quite annoying if you're in the AI business.
      - r00tanon 4y ago
        I admit I was being somewhat facesciuos. But clearly If you took credit for the work your computer did running your program, you would probably not get an argument from your computer until the conditions I mentioned were met
- dionidium 4y ago
  The website claims they are, but the justification is fairly risible (perhaps intentionally): > Are these chicken selfies? > Yes. The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function (the capture method on the Pi), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared. > This is identical to a human using an input device (tapping a button) to invoke a computer function (the post method on Instagram), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  So then a hypothetical bugler would be guilty of unauthorized use of a computing resource under the computer fraud and abuse act?
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
When I’ve rented cameras for photo shoots, I’m pretty sure I own the photos and not the rental company, so this checks out. Maybe the BUY NFT link on every photo goes to accounts the chickens own. Nothing about NFTs makes any less sense than this, so why not?
- situationista 4y ago
  In my humble opinion, contrary to your claim a lot of things about NFTs make less sense than what you suggest
- annoyingnoob 4y ago
  As long as the chickens follow the KYC rules (know your chicken) nothing is stopping them from opening crypto accounts.
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    I feel like there’s a KFC joke within reach
    - samspenc 4y ago
      If the chickens and the owner followed KYC, then maybe they won't end up at KFC? (I misread KYC in the GP comment as KFC first until I read your comment.)
marcosdumay 4y ago
If one sets-up the devices to that chickens or a burglar activate them, that one still owns the pictures, even though the chickens technically took them. But yeah, the the chickens or a burglar steals the cameras and activate them by their own programing, overriding whatever setting they had before, the camera owner won't own the copyright on the photos anymore. In other words, it's not that easy to lose the copyrights. The burglar just activating the motion-trigger isn't enough.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

>The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function [...] No, per the description and your legal context, the chickens are not taking the pictures.

BarryMilo 4y ago
You also don't own the copyright for pictures randomly generated by computers, presumably this applies to chicken randomization as well.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  -randomly You don’t own the copyright for any picture generated by a computer, whether random or intentional
  - batch12 4y ago
    How does that apply to 'upscaled' video?
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      That would be a derivative work. Original copyright applies.
  - BalinKing 4y ago
    Out of curiosity, is this true even if you wrote the program that generates the image?
    - altairprime 4y ago
      Generally, yes, if the output is perceptually varied each run. Generally, no, if the output is perceptually static each run. The law generally won’t help you narrow down where the exact line is between those two, as that’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    Good point, if I believe the other commenter, the image only needs to be varied, randomization is only one way to achieve this. That said, chicken can't own copyright, and they are the author, therefore no one owns the copyright.
  - popcube 4y ago
    but artists use computer for their artwork in a long time?
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      When it’s used like a tool, it’s considered the same as a chisel or a paint brush: the tool does not create the art, the artist makes the art by using the tool. It’s when then computer creates the art itself that it becomes the artist
- r00tanon 4y ago
  Well, presumably, if it is your computer, running your program, using your equipment, you've got the copyright until your computer gains consciousness and a lawyer capable of filing a lawsuit.
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    Not even, no. There was a famous case recently about this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Copyright%20Office%20(USCO,ruling%2C%20which%20found%20his%20A.I https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic.... The problem isn't really about using it yourself, it's that people don't need to ask your permission to use it, therefore you can't (easily) profit from it. Possibly quite annoying if you're in the AI business.
    - r00tanon 4y ago
      I admit I was being somewhat facesciuos. But clearly If you took credit for the work your computer did running your program, you would probably not get an argument from your computer until the conditions I mentioned were met
dionidium 4y ago
The website claims they are, but the justification is fairly risible (perhaps intentionally): > Are these chicken selfies? > Yes. The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function (the capture method on the Pi), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared. > This is identical to a human using an input device (tapping a button) to invoke a computer function (the post method on Instagram), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
So then a hypothetical bugler would be guilty of unauthorized use of a computing resource under the computer fraud and abuse act?

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

When I’ve rented cameras for photo shoots, I’m pretty sure I own the photos and not the rental company, so this checks out. Maybe the BUY NFT link on every photo goes to accounts the chickens own. Nothing about NFTs makes any less sense than this, so why not?

situationista 4y ago
In my humble opinion, contrary to your claim a lot of things about NFTs make less sense than what you suggest
annoyingnoob 4y ago
As long as the chickens follow the KYC rules (know your chicken) nothing is stopping them from opening crypto accounts.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  I feel like there’s a KFC joke within reach
  - samspenc 4y ago
    If the chickens and the owner followed KYC, then maybe they won't end up at KFC? (I misread KYC in the GP comment as KFC first until I read your comment.)

marcosdumay 4y ago

If one sets-up the devices to that chickens or a burglar activate them, that one still owns the pictures, even though the chickens technically took them. But yeah, the the chickens or a burglar steals the cameras and activate them by their own programing, overriding whatever setting they had before, the camera owner won't own the copyright on the photos anymore. In other words, it's not that easy to lose the copyrights. The burglar just activating the motion-trigger isn't enough.