5 ms·
IANAL either, but I believe for something to be copyrightable (and not an infringement on someone else's copyright), there needs to be a "modicum of creativity"
by superfrank 4y ago
IANAL either, but I believe for something to be copyrightable (and not an infringement on someone else's copyright), there needs to be a "modicum of creativity" in the new work. It makes me wonder if at least part of the case will depend on whether the court things an AI can be creative.
- arbuge 4y agoI don't see how you could reasonably decide AI is not creative, period, unless you arbitrarily restrict the word creative to mean human-generated.
- schrodinger 4y agoMaybe with AGI, but isn't the current state mostly based on probabilistic parameters with some seeds of randomness? Is that creative? Maybe it is. A human artist rolling a die to determine color changes, what to include and exclude, etc isn't much different.
- squeaky-clean 4y agoIt kind of already means human-generated. Courts decided that a monkey cannot hold a copyright over a selfie it took. Another part of copyright law is the actual ability to sue over copyright infringement, and they decided a monkey does not have the ability or right to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp... https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c52581e-d82f-4bb7-802c-191db44dca9f https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c52581e-d82f...