Technology

59311 readers

6258 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

194

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

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

76 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

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 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.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 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.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Then you should ammend 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 false.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social -2 points 9 months ago

You must be a blast at parties.