[HN Gopher] Federal Judge Upholds Finding That AI-Created Art Is...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Federal Judge Upholds Finding That AI-Created Art Isn't
       Copyrightable
        
       Author : ilamont
       Score  : 24 points
       Date   : 2023-08-19 17:53 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
        
       | jeisjdbndkdln wrote:
       | So can you write a bunch of prompts into a book format and
       | copyright the prompts, but not the works generated from those
       | prompts. Ok.
        
         | nextaccountic wrote:
         | The trouble is that the plaintiff didn't register himself as
         | the author (of the prompts).
         | 
         | He tried to register the AI as the author of the artwork, and
         | that's not copyright works.
        
       | pylua wrote:
       | I wonder how much humans will have to "selectively arrange" ai
       | generated code in order to constitute human copyright ownership.
       | Would that mean copy and pasted code from chat gpt invalidates a
       | whole codebase , or would it mean that as long as you don't use
       | it to generate an entire application it will be human copy
       | writable ?
        
         | halfdan wrote:
         | What's with the burden of proof? How do you prove that
         | something was AI generated in the first place?
        
           | pylua wrote:
           | I'm not sure there is a good solution here . Potentially that
           | could undermine the law? What happens in industries where the
           | law is impossible to enforce ?
        
             | 1MachineElf wrote:
             | I am not aware of good solutions, only hilariously bad
             | ones: https://www.firstpost.com/world/professor-fails-
             | entire-class...
        
       | webmobdev wrote:
       | This is a very interesting development. This would imply that any
       | work product generated by an AI would be public domain, right? If
       | BigTech generate code using AI for their products, can we demand
       | the source code?
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | No: "Not copyrightable" and "public domain" just means nobody
         | can say " I'm the only one allowed to make copies of that." It
         | doesn't compel you to share information or _help_ people make
         | copies. (Ex: People interested in a family portrait from 1900
         | hanging in your house, or a Project Gutenberg PDF on your hard
         | drive.)
         | 
         | Perhaps closer to software, recipes are not usually
         | copyrightable either, but that doesn't mean a customer can
         | taste my Secret Tasty Sauce and then force me to show them the
         | recipe card.
         | 
         | I think the real question here is whether un-copyrightable
         | source-code can be used to create copyrightable binaries... And
         | how that might change when software projects contain a _blend_
         | of source code.
        
         | Gibbon1 wrote:
         | My take anything generated by AI is essentially a worthless
         | good. Consider that the amount of energy, material resources,
         | human labor it takes to produce are essentially zero. And the
         | supply is unlimited.
        
         | pylua wrote:
         | I feel like that would be fair, and that the laws should be
         | updated with provisions for this for anything containing api
         | generated content.
        
       | yladiz wrote:
       | Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37188791
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-19 23:01 UTC)