Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday November 19 2019, @12:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the do-androids-dream? dept.

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."


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 19 2019, @09:33AM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday November 19 2019, @09:33AM (#921878) Homepage
    That condition never applied to humans, why should it apply to anything else?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 19 2019, @03:57PM (2 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday November 19 2019, @03:57PM (#921959) Journal

    The counter-example, someone with dementia/alzheimer's. Also, you have to be of a certain age, before you can legally sign a contract without a parent/guardian. You must be competent enough to sign a legal contract. "Artificial intelligence" is more like an idiot savant than a well rounded individual. Even then, the idiot savant would be much more capable than the AI. We're not even close to creating a "True Artificial Intelligence".

    Scenario 1: It’s too late for the person to sign a power of attorney

    Often, by the time a caregiver realizes that their older adult has diminished mental capacity, they’re no longer able to sign the necessary legal documents.

    Anderson says, “If a person gets to the point where they don’t know who their family members are, what assets they own, and who they would want to make decisions for them regarding their assets and health care matters, then they aren’t mentally competent to sign a legal document such as a health care power of attorney or financial power of attorney.

    “In this case,” Anderson advises, “there is very little that can be done for the person except applying to the court for a formal conservatorship or guardianship.”

    A conservatorship is when the court appoints a person (the conservator) to have control over a person’s (or ward’s) finances. A guardianship is when a person (the guardian) is appointed by a court to have control over the care, comfort, and maintenance of another person.

    Unfortunately, legal proceedings for these types of conservatorships and guardianships are usually time-consuming and expensive due to legal fees, agents’ fees, and court costs.

    https://dailycaring.com/dementia-and-power-of-attorney-what-to-do-if-someone-cant-or-wont-sign-a-poa/ [dailycaring.com]

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 20 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday November 20 2019, @12:33AM (#922172) Homepage
      None of that says "people with dementia can't own intellectual property rights", which was what you implied.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 20 2019, @03:28PM

        by Freeman (732) on Wednesday November 20 2019, @03:28PM (#922395) Journal

        True, but a person with Dementia, won't be making any of their own legal decisions. So, in essence the person who is making the legal decisions for the person with dementia, would be the one who owns the property rights. A monkey is smarter and has more freedom to make its' own decisions than an AI. AIs are literally, someone else's brain child. It'd be like saying, we're mass murderers, because every time we kill a bot in game, we're murdering someone. It has no basis in reality.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"