3 ms·
But was the "human behind the AI" also not involved in priming/training the AI about what to generate? Did the AI really decide what to create (and when to crea
by tremon 4y ago
But was the "human behind the AI" also not involved in priming/training the AI about what to generate? Did the AI really decide what to create (and when to create) of their own volition?
- detaro 4y agoThe decision is about "if we accept as fact that there was no human element, then this doesn't get copyright". Hence your questions are out of scope of the decision, which doesn't care if "no human element" is true or even possible, and that's why the decision means so little in practice, because once you consider those the situation changes.
- lr4444lr 4y agoIf a train a monkey to paint, would I have copyright in his works? I doubt it - just the actual product of his hand, because I own the monkey.
- bombcar 4y agoThere was the Monkie Selfie case.
- philipov 4y agoChances are they were not involved in training the AI, and just provided instructions to a website like DALL-E. If I give you a paragraph of instruction to write a book, barring any other contracts we make, I would be surprised to find anyone arguing I could use that paragraph to claim copyright over your book. The threshold of creative input we require for such a claim is higher than "More than zero"
- detaro 4y agoBut in that case there is another human creator involved, that's a key difference.
- philipov 4y agoTrue, but we don't need to assume that without a prior claim, the standard for awarding copyright bottoms out at nothing. Copyright exists to serve a specific purpose, to encourage people to make substantial investments that they would not make otherwise if they could not profit off them. If the investment is trivial to non-existent, there is no reason for the government to protect it.