3 ms·
> for one, this requirement is a complete departure from how copyright systems work now. A complete departure? Here is the current form used to register an art
by semiquaver 3y ago
> for one, this requirement is a complete departure from how copyright systems work now.
A complete departure? Here is the current form used to register an artistic visual work for copyright. Its more elaborate than you might think.
https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formva.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formva.pdf
Registration is not a rubber-stamp, it is increasingly refused because of indicia of AI tooling.
Why would adding some questions on provenance and methodology be beyond the pale?
- tavavex 3y agoNothing in the form seems out of the ordinary to me. It is a lot of fields, but ultimately the main goal is establishing ownership, not discerning the specific methodology in which a person made the work. It's a departure in that the current system is results-based, where you register a final product, while the proposed system also must take into consideration every intricacy of creating the work. > it is increasingly refused because of indicia of AI tooling. Do you have a source that a statistically significant number of copyright applications gets refused on account of a work just seeming like AI? On what grounds does it get refused?
- omeid2 3y agoWhat part of generative AI seems ordinary to you? the rest follows from there my friend.
- semiquaver 3y agoAsking for a statistical analysis is an unreasonably high bar. See the link I provided in a sibling comment, in which the copyright office plainly states as much and explains their guidelines. 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...