You must log in or register to comment.
- 7 hours
Fascinating talk.
According to the U.S. copyright office and Library of Congress, copyrighted works require a ‘human’ element: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922
If art generated by AI can not be copyrighted, it may well extend to AI-generated code. If so, the implications could be pretty far-reaching.
The one, practical use-case of AI that has found ‘product market fit’ so far has been using AI for coding. Companies are encouraging it. Developers (including experienced ones) are starting to use more of it. But if it turns out none of the generated output can be copyrighted, then you lose all the commercial users who are the revenue sources for all these tools and companies.
This talk feels like it’s touching on a pretty important topic.
- 5 hours
To be fair, this doesn’t mean you can’t use AI as a tool. An artist or a software developer can generate things with AI and orchestrate the pieces to become a new whole. That whole could still be copyrighted.
4 minutesIn that case the “orchestrate the pieces” part is copyrightable if it reaches a minimum threshold of creativity but the pieces themselves are still not copyrightable because a human still didn’t make them??
Some highlights from this talk: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/issues/413#issuecomment-4105667974 Quote: “Obvious, this is a copyright infringement.”
