3 ms·
You should be able to judge whether something is a copyright violation based on the resulting work. If a work was produced with or without computer assistance,
by kenferry 2y ago
You should be able to judge whether something is a copyright violation based on the resulting work. If a work was produced with or without computer assistance, why would that change whether it infringes?
- AshamedCaptain 2y agoIt helps. If it's at stake whether there is infringement or not, and it comes that you were looking at a photograph of the protected work while working on yours (or any other type of "computer assistance") do you think this would not make for a more clear cut case? That's why clean room reverse engineering and all of that even exists.
- samatman 2y agoAs a normative claim, this is interesting, perhaps this should be the rule. As a descriptive claim, it isn't correct. Several lawsuits relating to sampling in hip-hop have hinged on whether the sounds in the recording were, in fact, sampled, or instead, recreated independently.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- surfingdino 2y agoThere were also cases that (very broadly speaking) claimed that songs were sufficiently similar to constitute a copyright infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor... This is interesting from the legal point of view, because AI service providers like OpenAI give you "rights" to the output produced by their systems. E.g. see the "Content" section of https://openai.com/policies/eu-terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/eu-terms-of-use/ Given that output cannot be produced without input, and models have to be trained on something, one could claim the original IP owners could have a reasonable claim against people and entities who use their content without permission.