this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
613 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59069 readers
3573 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

No, AI does not create new ~~derivative~~ transformative works. Copyright law is very clear that the thing that is copyrightable is that modicum of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium of expression, that society must encourage and protect.

Derivative works need even more creativity to be protectable than original works because it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, transformative, even though the original may still be very recognizable.

An AI system does not have creativity. At best, it could mimic someone who is creative, but it could never have creativity on its own. It is generative, not creative.

It's like that monkey that took a nice picture, but the picture was not copyrightable because the person seeking to enforce the copyright didn't create the work. It's creativity that the Constitution seeks to encourage by the copyright clause.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, even though the original may still be recognizable

Your definition implies Andy Warhol wasn't creative.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

I think they are considered derivative, and are not protected. Not that he wasn't creative, just that his work wasn't so creative to be independently copyrightable. I'm a little rusty on my IP law.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

The AI doesn't need creativity because the "A" in "AI" stands for "artificial," not "autonomous." It's a tool. Someone is controlling the output by setting the input parameters.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can make new derivative work without being creative. Just look at all the YouTubers copying each other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Many of those those reaction videos on YouTube are actually infringing on copyright. Just that the videos they're reacting to aren't made by people with deep enough pockets to sue them so they get away with it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Well said. "Art launderers" is the best ai descriptor I've come across so far.