2 ms·

Fundamentally I think the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain and that dmca anything that using copyrighted work. But at the

by 0dayz 3y ago

Fundamentally I think the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain and that dmca anything that using copyrighted work. But at the end of the day, the issue at hand is really the way copyright works. Since so far the "copyright" we got at the moment is mostly in practice only ever a right for the middleman (publisher, record companies, etc. ) which are important to the industry just not remotely as beneficial to the actual creator(s). If there was a clear cut licensing system (license to stream, license to use once, lifetime license and ai training license) it would solve potentially the ai issue, since some of the profit would go to the creator. But since copyright is based on who owns it (based on usually capital purchase) like a monopoly, instead of an inherent creator(s) , it's at odds with the creator(s) and automation.

g-clef 3y ago
> the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain That's close to what the Copyright office is laying out as their actual policy for AI-generated work: images or text created by AI prompting with no other human interaction are not eligible for copyright [1]. I like the Copyright office's approach, since it's pretty straightforward - did a human do this? If yes, can be copyrighted. If no, cannot. It follows clearly from the monkey selfie thing from a couple years ago, as well. Unsurprisingly, though, some people have a problem with that idea. The Washington Post ran an op-ed that they put on the front page of the opinion section for a couple days claiming that this ruling was awful, and would destroy everything. [2] Personally, I'm taking the op-ed writer's opinion with a grain of salt, since he seems proud to have written a book praising NFTs, but that's just me. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/artificial-intelligence-copyright-decision-misguided/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/artificia...
- 0dayz 3y ago
  >"Hurts creators" Edward Lee does such a cynical pearl clutch, artists does creative work, if ai replaces 90% of that, there's no "creative work" left, then it's like a record label labeling itself as a culture creator despite only maybe doing 10% of creative work. And as you point out, it's not as if you can't copyright individual pieces and plan out the parts you are willing to make non-copyrightable (such as backgrounds).

by 0dayz 3y ago

g-clef 3y ago

> the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain That's close to what the Copyright office is laying out as their actual policy for AI-generated work: images or text created by AI prompting with no other human interaction are not eligible for copyright [1]. I like the Copyright office's approach, since it's pretty straightforward - did a human do this? If yes, can be copyrighted. If no, cannot. It follows clearly from the monkey selfie thing from a couple years ago, as well. Unsurprisingly, though, some people have a problem with that idea. The Washington Post ran an op-ed that they put on the front page of the opinion section for a couple days claiming that this ruling was awful, and would destroy everything. [2] Personally, I'm taking the op-ed writer's opinion with a grain of salt, since he seems proud to have written a book praising NFTs, but that's just me. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/artificial-intelligence-copyright-decision-misguided/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/artificia...

0dayz 3y ago
>"Hurts creators" Edward Lee does such a cynical pearl clutch, artists does creative work, if ai replaces 90% of that, there's no "creative work" left, then it's like a record label labeling itself as a culture creator despite only maybe doing 10% of creative work. And as you point out, it's not as if you can't copyright individual pieces and plan out the parts you are willing to make non-copyrightable (such as backgrounds).