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: 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