4 ms·
Can you? Didn't we run into this with the Monkey Selfie case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
by tapoxi 3y ago
Can you? Didn't we run into this with the Monkey Selfie case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
If you have artistic intent by giving the monkey access to the camera and the monkey takes the picture, it can't be copyrighted. Similarly, if you have intent and give AI access to create something, you shouldn't be able to patent it.
- dmurray 3y agoWe did run into that issue with monkeys and copyright, and we ran into it again with AI and patents. The Copyright Office ruled one way on monkeys and copyright, and an appeals court held that they were largely correct. The Patent and Trademarks Office ruled the other way on AI and patents. It - or any court making a decision on it - might be influenced by the monkeys and copyright case, but they're not bound by it. Monkeys are different things from computers, patents are different from copyright, and the laws for one need not be the same as the other.
- SkyBelow 3y agoWith copyright, it applies to the specific work. With patents, it applies to a more general idea. Someone else can't come copyright that same photo later, but could someone else come and patent the method later? If not, then isn't the AI still good for invalidating the possibility to even patent the item. If so, then what must the other person do that lets them apply for the patent, and could that just be added as a step to applying for the patent?