3 ms·

machines work on behalf of humans, any human could similarly claim their typewriter did it

• tsimionescu 2y ago
  That's still irrelevant. The distinction the law makes is between human creativity vs machine processes. A human may or may not have added their own creativity to the mix, and the law falls on the side of assuming creativity from humans (though if there is proof that the human followed some mechanical process, that likely changes things). Machines are not creative, by definition in the law today, so any transformation that a machine makes is irrelevant, the work is fundamentally the same work that was used as input from a legal perspective. That this work is done on behalf of a human changes nothing, the problem the law has with this is that the human is copying the original work without copyright, even if the human used a machine to produce an altered copy. Whether they used bcrypt, zip, an mp3 encoder, a bad copy machine, or a machine learning algorithm, the result is the same: the output of a purely mechanical process is still a copy of the original works from a copyright perspective.