Technology

59374 readers

7261 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

250

A New York Times copyright lawsuit could kill OpenAI (www.vox.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A New York Times copyright lawsuit could kill OpenAI::A list of authors and entertainers are also suing the tech company for damages that could total in the billions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The problem with copyright is that everything is automatically copyrighted. The copyright logo is purely symbolic, at this point. Both sides are technically right, even though the courts have ruled that anything an AI outputs is actually in the public domain.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Works involving the use of AI are copyrightable. Also, the Copyright Office's guidance isn’t law. Their guidance reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience, it isn’t binding in the courts or other parties. Guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone. They are the lowest rung on the ladder for deciding what law means.

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

I wasn't talking about Copyright Office. I was talking about the courts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

This ruling is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.

An excerpt from your article:

In 2018, Dr. Thaler sought to register "Recent Entrance" with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as its author. He claimed that ownership had been transferred to him under the work-for-hire doctrine, which allows the employer of the creator of a given work or the commissioner of the work to be considered its legal author. However, in 2019, the Copyright Office denied copyright registration for "Recent Entrance," ruling that the work lacked the requisite human authorship. Dr. Thaler requested a review of his application, but the Copyright Office once more refused registration, restating the requirement that a human have created the work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I know. That's I've been saying this whole time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Then you should amend your comment to:

even though the courts have ruled that anything atributed to an AI ~~outputs~~ as an author is actually in the public domain.

Because as typed, it is wrong.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

You must be a blast at parties.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

Between 2011 and 2018, a series of disputes took place about the copyright status of selfies taken by Celebes crested macaques using equipment belonging to the British wildlife photographer David J. Slater. The disputes involved Wikimedia Commons and the blog Techdirt, which have hosted the images following their publication in newspapers in July 2011 over Slater's objections that he holds the copyright, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who have argued that the copyright should be assigned to the macaque. Slater has argued that he has a valid copyright claim because as he engineered the situation that resulted in the pictures by travelling to Indonesia, befriending a group of wild macaques, and setting up his camera equipment in such a way that a selfie might come about. The Wikimedia Foundation's 2014 refusal to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library was based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^