198
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, U.S. Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Yes, absolutely. They want AI to be people such that copyright applies and such that they can claim the AI was inspired just like a human artist is by the art they're exposed to.

We need a license model such that AI is only allowed to be trained on content were the license explicitly permits it and that no mention is equal to it being disallowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    We need a license model such that AI is only allowed to be trained on content were the license explicitly permits it and that no mention is equal to it being disallowed.

    That is the default model behind copyright, which basically says that the only things people can use your copyrighted work for without a license are those which are determined to be "fair use".

    I don't see any way in which today's AI ought to be considered fair use of other people's writings, artwork, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    The concepts contained within a copyrighted work are not themselves copyrighted. It's impossible to copyright an idea. Fair use doesn't even enter into it, you can read a copyrighted work and learn something from it and later use that learning with no restrictions whatsoever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent