Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the Bender-says-"No" dept.

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.

See also: Academy of European Law Conference Report: "Artificial Intelligence: Challenges for Intellectual Property Law"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:39AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:39AM (#919197)

    See Dr. Pulaski vs. Data and also the struggles of holographic beings as captured by Joe the EMH/ECH's revolutionary work Photons Be Free [fandom.com].

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:24AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:24AM (#919235)

    Pulaski was racist against mechanical lifeforms, Lore was racist against against biological lifeforms. They could have accomplished so much together.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:37PM (2 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:37PM (#919365) Journal

      What has race got to do with anything - can't you think of the correct word?

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:37PM (#919413) Journal

        Is there a correct word?

        Is it copyrighted?

        (or worse patented? twisted rationale: if that word is expressed in digital form, then it is a form of software, and software can be patented)

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @05:55AM (#919731)

          Bigoted maybe?

  • (Score: 2) by dmc on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:09AM

    by dmc (188) on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:09AM (#920236)

    mod parent up, good subject and references, implicitly highlighting the importance of "copyrightable by whom".

    Until we are really willing to consider "copyrightable by the AI being", the answer is IMO "a fancy algorithm is a fancy tool".