3 ms·

Do artists not own copyright on artwork which comprises other sources (eg. collage, sampled music)? It’d be hard to claim that eg. Daft Punk doesn’t own copyrig

by taneq 4y ago

Do artists not own copyright on artwork which comprises other sources (eg. collage, sampled music)? It’d be hard to claim that eg. Daft Punk doesn’t own copyright on their music. (Whether other artists can claim copyright over some recognisable sample is another question.)

rnd0 4y ago
>Do artists not own copyright on artwork which comprises other sources (eg. collage, sampled music)? It’d be hard to claim that eg. Daft Punk doesn’t own copyright on their music. Agreed. By that logic, William S Burroughs wouldn't own his best novels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique
kmeisthax 4y ago
This is why there's the "thin copyright" doctrine in the US. It comes up often in music cases, since a lot of pop music is trying to do the same thing. You can take a bunch of uncopyrightable elements, mix them together in a creative way, and get copyright over that. But that's a very "thin" copyright since the creativity is less. I don't think thin copyright would apply to AI model weights, since those are trained entirely by an automated process. Hyperparameters are selected primarily for functionality and not creative merit. And the actual model architectures themselves would be the subject of patents, not copyright; since they're ideas, not expressions of an idea. Related note: have we seen someone try to patent-troll AI yet?
nl 4y ago
It depends. The Verve's Richard Ashcroft lost partial copyright and all royalties for "Bitter Sweet Symphony" because a sample from the Rolling Stones wasn't properly cleared: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony Men at Work lost copyright over their famous "Land Down Under" because it used a tune from "Kookaburra sits in the Old Gum Tree" as an important part of the chorus.

by taneq 4y ago

rnd0 4y ago

>Do artists not own copyright on artwork which comprises other sources (eg. collage, sampled music)? It’d be hard to claim that eg. Daft Punk doesn’t own copyright on their music. Agreed. By that logic, William S Burroughs wouldn't own his best novels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique

kmeisthax 4y ago

This is why there's the "thin copyright" doctrine in the US. It comes up often in music cases, since a lot of pop music is trying to do the same thing. You can take a bunch of uncopyrightable elements, mix them together in a creative way, and get copyright over that. But that's a very "thin" copyright since the creativity is less. I don't think thin copyright would apply to AI model weights, since those are trained entirely by an automated process. Hyperparameters are selected primarily for functionality and not creative merit. And the actual model architectures themselves would be the subject of patents, not copyright; since they're ideas, not expressions of an idea. Related note: have we seen someone try to patent-troll AI yet?

nl 4y ago

It depends. The Verve's Richard Ashcroft lost partial copyright and all royalties for "Bitter Sweet Symphony" because a sample from the Rolling Stones wasn't properly cleared: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony Men at Work lost copyright over their famous "Land Down Under" because it used a tune from "Kookaburra sits in the Old Gum Tree" as an important part of the chorus.