4 ms·
> On the other hand a work generated by a DNN by itself is not copyrightable I don't really understand the logic here. I have heard there is also some legal pr
by sharperguy 4y ago
> On the other hand a work generated by a DNN by itself is not copyrightable
I don't really understand the logic here. I have heard there is also some legal precidence to this claim. But surely using photoshop to create an image doesn't mean that you didn't create the image, but photoshop did? So why should this apply to tools that use neural networks?
- Rochus 4y agoThis is simply the law; as we know, laws or jurisprudence are not always logical, at least not from every perspective. From my point of view, it makes sense to limit copyright to the minimum necessary. And in the case of computer-generated art, it will be difficult to judge anyway whether it actually comes from the artist who published it, or whether it - or parts of it - have merely been generated by a DNN.