3 ms·
i would argue that we _do_ need new laws. AI generated code is so quite different from any other literary works - after all, it was not created by a human. My
by chii 4y ago
i would argue that we _do_ need new laws. AI generated code is so quite different from any other literary works - after all, it was not created by a human.
My own personal opinion is that the AI generated code (or pictures in the case of the article) should be under a new category of literary works, such that it does not receive copyright protection, but also does not violate existing copyright.
- XorNot 4y agoThis is meaningless though. The majority of AI generated art you see out there is either hand tweaked or post-processed or both. There's human input involved and drawing a line is going to absolutely backfire.
- chii 4y agoif you presented both the generated image and the "original" to a jury of peers (or even a panel of experts in the field), they would be able to make a determination as to whether the generated image violated the copyright of the presented "original". Humans tweaking the image is immaterial to this determination - if the human tweaked it so that it no longer seem to violate copyright, then that said panel would also make the same determination.
- XorNot 4y agoYou are arguing that AI generated means no copyright protection. So you can't tweak it to "not violate copyright" because their literally isn't any. Of course you have no way to prove whether any image was or was not generated by AI so welcome to a new scam for law firms to aggressively sue artists claiming they suspect AI was used in their works.
- pulvinar 4y agoThe vast majority of paintings weren't created by a human either, but by a paintbrush. We should really ban those too. Just think of all the poor finger-painters who've been put out of a job!