SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
USPTO Questions if Artificial Intelligence Can Create or Infringe Copyrighted Works
The USPTO is part of the US Department of Commerce and deals with various intellectual property rights issues. It previously raised questions on how AI technology impacts patent law and is now expanding this to copyright matters.
The consultation starts off by asking whether anything created by an AI, without human involvement, can be copyrighted. This can refer to any type of content, including music, images, and texts.
"Should a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the involvement of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting work, qualify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law? Why or why not?" the Office asks.
The technology and code that makes any AI work obviously relies on human interaction, but USPTO's question is destined to raise a lively debate. Since it's expected that more and more creations will rely heavily on AI in the future, the US Government requests guidance on these issues.
In a follow-up question, the Office zooms in further still by asking what kind of human involvement is required to make something copyrightable. Yet another question deals with possible copyright infringements by an AI. Or in other words, can an AI pirate?
The comment period closes on Dec. 16.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:27AM (5 children)
I mean, with the cheap means of creation, do the creation act need further support "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?
Shouldn't actually the question be "If AI can create, do we need to protect it at all?"
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:53AM (1 child)
Of course we need to protect it. The guardians of our culture in the MAFIAA have found a way to continue to bestow their gifts without needing to pay pesky underlings... any pesky underlings, like those director types.
We’ve taken care of everything
The words you read
The songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure
To your eye
One for all and all for one
Work together
Common sons
Never need to wonder
How or why
We are the Priests
Of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hallowed halls
We are the Priests
Of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls
(i assume everybody here knows the song but would not feel right without oblig attribution link [rush.com])
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:59AM
Ummmhhhhh... don't know about that "we". Maybe "they" would be more appropriate.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:49AM (2 children)
You jest, but seriously, we don't need copyright. It's long overdue for abolishment and replacement. Copying belongs to the masses now. What we have now puts the printing press to shame.
With no copyright, silly questions about whether AI deserve the protections of copyright are rendered moot. We the people deserve the use, without restraint and threats of punishment, the natural right to create copies.
Artist are among the worst for clinging to copyright, out of fear and greed, when they should want their works to be as popular as possible. Copyright hinders art, but they just can't see that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:58AM (1 child)
Apologies, next time I'll (grin, only serious) (the adaptation of "ha ha, only serious" for my specific case). No, seriously, promise I will.
There is a class of artists quite prone to the problem of the "earn her/his everyday life" - anything that is electronically reproducible and the reproduction is good enough to convey the value.
In this category: writers of many kinds, movie actors, photographs... I'd almost include song-writers or any music writers which don't gain any value being interpreted on stage (electronica, ambient, relaxing, etc). Actually, all music-composers-but-not-interpreters would run the risk of not being able to earn their keep no matter how good their music is, even if the music is performed on stage.
Any ideas or different opinions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:12PM
Yes. I've been thinking crowdfunding/patronage and perhaps a "public use payment right" is what's needed.
Patronage is hardly new, it's been working for centuries. Now, however, we can do patronage a whole lot better. Doesn't have to be rich nobles providing the funds; large groups of ordinary citizens can chip in. On the crowdfunding front, things have been moving. Now we have humblebundle, kickstarter, indiegogo, patreon, royalroad, wattpad, and hundreds more. All these platforms are barely 10 years old.
Copyright has a lot of shameful failures that its supporters can't excuse. Artists were cheated massively by work-for-hire arrangements thanks to the entertainment industry colluding against them. They unionized and put copyright to use on their behalf, and now they cling to copyright. Last week, on this writersblock Discord chat group, I asked a bunch of aspiring authors what they thought of piracy. Basically, they don't talk about it, it's a banned subject. Kept on saying participants were not to promote piracy, as if just asking about it is to promote it. Wow. Hollywood Accounting is another rip-off.
Then there's the plight of the public library. We now have the technology to make the public library a thousand times better, but we can't, thanks to legal barriers arising from copyright.