4 ms·

I would like the Copyright Office to delineate just how much effort is necessary for a work to possess “the traditional elements of authorship.” I type in MIDI

I would like the Copyright Office to delineate just how much effort is necessary for a work to possess “the traditional elements of authorship.” I type in MIDI instructions and play back a tune, but if I type in sentences it doesn’t count? Maybe they can measure entropy. Did you emit a sufficient amount of data to make the Music Box work, given the Copyright Office defined ratio? For every unit of data in your song, you must have emitted no less than 1/2 of a unit, which was specifically intended to manipulate the Music Box in order to shape outputs. Any less and the creation isn’t yours. What do you mean I can’t copyright this song? My air drumming against the cassette player introduced very significant data, which adjusted the playback. Just a very slight legato. It’s too similar? I assure you it is not. Convert the two to Universal Data Format and check the Hamming distance. Incredibly different pieces of data, believe you, me. This is basically the origin story for how the US Copyright Office became the galaxy’s Entropy Police. “Back in 2023 someone tried to copyright a photo of an “ottercat” surfing a DeLorean on the moon and now we’re in charge of how organized is too organized.”

modzu 4y ago
as you've discovered, really it just depends on your lawyer
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  It's always been all about the lawyers, juries, and judges. The laws have always been the least significant thing in the legal system.
sgentle 4y ago
Here you go: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... 308.2 Creativity "A work of authorship must possess 'some minimal degree of creativity' to sustain a copyright claim. [...] '[T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low.' Even a 'slight amount' of creative expression will suffice. 'The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.'" 310.7 The Time, Effort, or Expense Required to Create the Work "When examining a work for original authorship, the U.S. Copyright Office [...] will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work. These issues have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution." Note that this is not true in every country's copyright system (some do recognise effort), but it is true in the US.
- pontifier 4y ago
  If I wave my camera around taking lots of pictures, and then find one that I really really like I can copyright it. If I generate a bunch of AI images and find one that I really really like, I think I should be able to copyright that too. In both, the creative spark comes from discerning what has value.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Careful with your wording: you don't generate AI images, the AI generates images. You use the AI to generate images. An argument could be made that the AI acts like the camera and the selection process is the creative act. The text hints at this when it mentions curation. But curation also provides a far more limited protection than authorship (e.g. consider the copyright of phonebooks).
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      Generally agree. But if it’s the AI generating the images then it’s also the camera generating the images.
    - pontifier 4y ago
      There is a precedent that any work done in a data center on behalf of a user, because a user initiated the action, has the same protections as if the user had performed the action themselves. It has been used, in connection to copyright, to allow "cloud DVR services". I'd argue that in the case of AI generated work as we see it now, especially if a prompt from the user is required, that work would not exist except for the action of the user, and is thus created by their action.

modzu 4y ago

as you've discovered, really it just depends on your lawyer

pmoriarty 4y ago
It's always been all about the lawyers, juries, and judges. The laws have always been the least significant thing in the legal system.

sgentle 4y ago

Here you go: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... 308.2 Creativity "A work of authorship must possess 'some minimal degree of creativity' to sustain a copyright claim. [...] '[T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low.' Even a 'slight amount' of creative expression will suffice. 'The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.'" 310.7 The Time, Effort, or Expense Required to Create the Work "When examining a work for original authorship, the U.S. Copyright Office [...] will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work. These issues have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution." Note that this is not true in every country's copyright system (some do recognise effort), but it is true in the US.

pontifier 4y ago
If I wave my camera around taking lots of pictures, and then find one that I really really like I can copyright it. If I generate a bunch of AI images and find one that I really really like, I think I should be able to copyright that too. In both, the creative spark comes from discerning what has value.
- hnbad 4y ago
  Careful with your wording: you don't generate AI images, the AI generates images. You use the AI to generate images. An argument could be made that the AI acts like the camera and the selection process is the creative act. The text hints at this when it mentions curation. But curation also provides a far more limited protection than authorship (e.g. consider the copyright of phonebooks).
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Generally agree. But if it’s the AI generating the images then it’s also the camera generating the images.
  - pontifier 4y ago
    There is a precedent that any work done in a data center on behalf of a user, because a user initiated the action, has the same protections as if the user had performed the action themselves. It has been used, in connection to copyright, to allow "cloud DVR services". I'd argue that in the case of AI generated work as we see it now, especially if a prompt from the user is required, that work would not exist except for the action of the user, and is thus created by their action.