SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337
The USPTO wants to know if artificial intelligence can own the content it creates
And it wants the public to weigh in
The US office responsible for patents and trademarks is trying to figure out how AI might call for changes to copyright law, and it's asking the public for opinions on the topic. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register last month saying it's seeking comments, as spotted by TorrentFreak.
The office is gathering information about the impact of artificial intelligence on copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights. It outlines thirteen specific questions, ranging from what happens if an AI creates a copyright-infringing work to if it's legal to feed an AI copyrighted material.
It starts off by asking if output made by AI without any creative involvement from a human should qualify as a work of authorship that's protectable by US copyright law. If not, then what degree of human involvement "would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection?"
Other questions ask if the company that trains an AI should own the resulting work, and if it's okay to use copyrighted material to train an AI in the first place. "Should authors be recognized for this type of use of their works?" asks the office. "If so, how?"
The office, which, among other things, advises the government on copyright, often seeks public opinion to understand new developments and hear from people who actually deal with them. Earlier this year, the office similarly asked for public opinion on AI and patents.
"if it's really a push button thing, and you get a result, I don't think there's any copyright in that."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Tuesday November 19 2019, @07:30AM (11 children)
I think there is grounds for a type of protective copyright that lasts the life of an author. Not for everything but, for example, writers of series should be able to protect their universe from intruders.
Maybe separate the right to create derivative works from the right to control copies. After ten years you can make as many copies as you want, but if the author is still alive you can't publish Harry Potter and The Strange Banana.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 19 2019, @09:31AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday November 19 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)
There should be a difference between literary and functional works. I was replying to PartTimeZombie's comment that copyright should be 10 years. The 'universe' protection, I think would probably require a new type of right, something applying to an entire corpus. (But it should be traded for a massive reduction in the length of copyright.)
I don't think an API should be covered by copyright at all. The code that implements it maybe, although I tend to think anything that escapes the first sale doctrine should also evade copyright. The actual API is more akin to a patentable mechanism than a literary work, though I think the bar for "not obvious to one skilled in the art" should be much higher. The main problem is that they are asking for the broad protection of a patent, with the lifespan and easy attainability of copyright. Just because you wrote a short story set on a beach, you don't get to say no-one else can write a short story set on a beach.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 20 2019, @12:36AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)
So you are suggesting that we put into law the motive for killing authors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @04:10AM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 19 2019, @07:12PM (2 children)
I was never terribly interested in Harry Potter and have never read any of the books, or seen the movies, but Harry Potter and The Strange Banana sounds great.
Someone should get right on that.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @07:49PM (1 child)
Have you checked the "adult" section of the store? I'm pretty sure that one has already been made.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 19 2019, @10:19PM
That one may have been "Harry Potter orders a pizza".
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday November 19 2019, @07:50PM (2 children)
Disagree. They should be able to say "I am the original creator" and nothing more. If I'm a fan of Star Wars, why shouldn't I be able to write Star Wars novels? I don't think anyone would take me seriously since I'm not George Lucas. Harry Potter? I'm not J.K. Rowling. Why should fans not be able to write their own fandom stories? And if someone does a better job than the author, then why not let them publish?
You might be able to say that no one can write in that universe for profit for 10 years after initial publication. And, of course, copyright on the stories written for 10 years. I might go for that. But the rest? No. Let people have their freedom. Let individual creativity take flight instead of squashing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @04:01AM (1 child)
So I can make cheap watches, stamp them with Rolex, or make handbags with Louis Vuitton on them, and as long as I don't claim to be the original, that's fine?
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday November 20 2019, @01:42PM
I think the name of who made the item is more important than the name of the item itself. Rolex is a company, so, no, you can't just slap Rolex on a watch. Louis Vuitton is a company, so no, you can't just slap Louis Vuitton on a bag.
In my Star Wars example, you can't claim to be Disney or George Lucas. You can't claim to be Terry Pratchett of Discworld if you write a Discworld novel. You can't claim to be the Shakespeare if you write another Romeo and Juliet play. But why can't we have more Star Wars stories, Discworld stories, and stories like Romeo and Juliet? (Hint: There are lots of Romeo and Juliet stories.)