3 ms·
>> Previous rulings had found that when code itself was copyrighted due to being a work of art (of human labor) Traditionally code would be written as a tool t
by phkahler 3y ago
>> Previous rulings had found that when code itself was copyrighted due to being a work of art (of human labor)
Traditionally code would be written as a tool to achieve a specific output. If you automate the task of generating a particular piece of code, you still did all the work, or at least defined it pprecisely. While I don't see AI as an independent mind (yet) it seems independent enough from the person who prompts it to say the prompter doesn't own the output. I'm so 100 percent on what I just wrote, but it seems reasonable enough to say the precedent you mention may not apply.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoI'm pretty sure if the output of the code could be seen as deterministic, that is to say the code just makes what will be produced 1000 times quicker, then the work would be copyrightable but if the output is not deterministic then we cannot say to whom the copyright should belong.
- cma 3y agoWhat if you roll dice in making choices in a traditional work?
- randombits0 3y agoOnly creative expressions are copyrightable. Purely functional expressions are not.
- regularfry 3y agoDifferent area of law, but I'm pretty sure computer generated ideas have been patented before now.