4 ms·

> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship i

> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.

phyzix5761 2y ago
As all interpretations of law are. That's why there's the profession of lawyer and they make very good money if they can convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of the law. As a software engineer I see the dangers of such an inexact system. Where we can put people in jail for the rest of their lives or let others go free just because there's so much gray area in the interpretation of the law.
- yifanl 2y ago
  The inexactness of law is what makes it possible to extend it to novel situations like this. We don't live at the end of history.
- capital_guy 2y ago
  This is a point of hubris I see among SWEs very frequently, for some reason. People like to think they could make a better system, one that's black and white. The truth is the use of judgement and context is essential to a good legal system.
- vharuck 2y ago
  Exact systems that put people in jail would be much more terrifying, because they'd achieve simplicity by ignoring complexity. The existence of the state and federal supreme courts in the US shows the need for careful consideration of how laws interact with one another and an ever-changing world.
- dave4420 2y ago
  As a software engineer I see the dangers of a nominally exhaustively-specified system. Where people would spend their lives in jail or go free depending on whether a majority of legislators had considered that particular edge case. It’s better than judges have some discretion.
j_w 2y ago
It may not be you doing the work to generate it, but if you are distributing illegal content that is still illegal no matter how you generated it.
delusional 2y ago
That is not what the ruling says Two quotes from the judgement > On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner. and > Nor do we reach Dr. Thaler’s argument that he is the work’s author by virtue of making and using the Creativity Machine because that argument was waived before the agency. Make it very clear that this is NOT an opinion on if a human being can be said to be the author of a work that they used an AI to generate. Dr. Thaler listed the machine itself as the author on the original application, and has therefore conceded that he is not the author. The courts cannot concluded that he filled out the form in error, and must accept the facts as given. This judgment says that if you decide that the machine is the author, then you can't claim copyright. It says nothing about what happens if you claim that you are the author. This would of course not carry over when we talk about liability, since the defendant doesn't get to decide what the claim is in those cases.
elmerfud 2y ago
No that is not the logical take that is an extremely illogical extension of what was said. What was upheld was narrowly tailored in regards to copyright protections. If you're saying that the AI created deep fake cannot be copyrighted well then you would be in line with what the court said. If you are saying that there is a logical extension that a machine created something at the behest of a human that that human cannot be held responsible for the creation, that is not what is being said at all. As a matter of fact there is a long history of things and not being able to be copyrighted but people can still be held criminally liable for.

phyzix5761 2y ago

As all interpretations of law are. That's why there's the profession of lawyer and they make very good money if they can convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of the law. As a software engineer I see the dangers of such an inexact system. Where we can put people in jail for the rest of their lives or let others go free just because there's so much gray area in the interpretation of the law.

yifanl 2y ago
The inexactness of law is what makes it possible to extend it to novel situations like this. We don't live at the end of history.
capital_guy 2y ago
This is a point of hubris I see among SWEs very frequently, for some reason. People like to think they could make a better system, one that's black and white. The truth is the use of judgement and context is essential to a good legal system.
vharuck 2y ago
Exact systems that put people in jail would be much more terrifying, because they'd achieve simplicity by ignoring complexity. The existence of the state and federal supreme courts in the US shows the need for careful consideration of how laws interact with one another and an ever-changing world.
dave4420 2y ago
As a software engineer I see the dangers of a nominally exhaustively-specified system. Where people would spend their lives in jail or go free depending on whether a majority of legislators had considered that particular edge case. It’s better than judges have some discretion.

j_w 2y ago

It may not be you doing the work to generate it, but if you are distributing illegal content that is still illegal no matter how you generated it.

delusional 2y ago

That is not what the ruling says Two quotes from the judgement > On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner. and > Nor do we reach Dr. Thaler’s argument that he is the work’s author by virtue of making and using the Creativity Machine because that argument was waived before the agency. Make it very clear that this is NOT an opinion on if a human being can be said to be the author of a work that they used an AI to generate. Dr. Thaler listed the machine itself as the author on the original application, and has therefore conceded that he is not the author. The courts cannot concluded that he filled out the form in error, and must accept the facts as given. This judgment says that if you decide that the machine is the author, then you can't claim copyright. It says nothing about what happens if you claim that you are the author. This would of course not carry over when we talk about liability, since the defendant doesn't get to decide what the claim is in those cases.

elmerfud 2y ago

No that is not the logical take that is an extremely illogical extension of what was said. What was upheld was narrowly tailored in regards to copyright protections. If you're saying that the AI created deep fake cannot be copyrighted well then you would be in line with what the court said. If you are saying that there is a logical extension that a machine created something at the behest of a human that that human cannot be held responsible for the creation, that is not what is being said at all. As a matter of fact there is a long history of things and not being able to be copyrighted but people can still be held criminally liable for.