[JPK]

I was reading about this one the other day and it appears that The Authors Guild stepped in and helped get the ai books removed. Unless there's been new developments again.

I suspect we'll be seeing more stunts like this as time goes by and publishers are testing to see what they can get away with.

[Maark Abbott]

Macros, on 15 August 2023 - 05:00 PM, said:

366389023_674392334734760_5098956289938988273_n.jpg

"But AI isn't theft engines noooooo"

I heard there was some kind of court ruling on work generated by theft engines not being eligible for trademark which would be pretty sweet.

[Tsundoku]

Maark Abbott, on 29 August 2023 - 07:21 AM, said:

Macros, on 15 August 2023 - 05:00 PM, said:

366389023_674392334734760_5098956289938988273_n.jpg

"But AI isn't theft engines noooooo"

I heard there was some kind of court ruling on work generated by theft engines not being eligible for trademark which would be pretty sweet.

So just watch as anything created by AI gets trademarked by a bunch of publishing house (or similar) employees whose only real job will be to serve as a repository of copyright etc.

[Maark Abbott]

Tsundoku, on 29 August 2023 - 08:02 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 29 August 2023 - 07:21 AM, said:

Macros, on 15 August 2023 - 05:00 PM, said:

366389023_674392334734760_5098956289938988273_n.jpg

"But AI isn't theft engines noooooo"

I heard there was some kind of court ruling on work generated by theft engines not being eligible for trademark which would be pretty sweet.

So just watch as anything created by AI gets trademarked by a bunch of publishing house (or similar) employees whose only real job will be to serve as a repository of copyright etc.

I'd have to dig about a bit but I'm pretty sure the ruling was something created by a theft engine was legally ineligible for copyright, which would quash that. We can hope...

[Tsundoku]

Yes but they have to know it was written by AI in the first place. And that need not be declared.
Hence a string of on-retainer hacks for the purpose of claiming the copyright, or trademark, or whatever.

Hell, if Brandon Sanderson can produce at the rate he does, why not a bunch of no-names to claim the rights once the wheat is sorted from the chaff of thousands of scripts/novels etc?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 29 August 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

Tsundoku, on 29 August 2023 - 08:02 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 29 August 2023 - 07:21 AM, said:

Macros, on 15 August 2023 - 05:00 PM, said:

366389023_674392334734760_5098956289938988273_n.jpg

"But AI isn't theft engines noooooo"

I heard there was some kind of court ruling on work generated by theft engines not being eligible for trademark which would be pretty sweet.

So just watch as anything created by AI gets trademarked by a bunch of publishing house (or similar) employees whose only real job will be to serve as a repository of copyright etc.

I'd have to dig about a bit but I'm pretty sure the ruling was something created by a theft engine was legally ineligible for copyright, which would quash that. We can hope...

Quote

In her decision, Judge Howell wrote that copyright has never been granted to work that was "absent any guiding human hand," adding that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright."

[...] Judge Howell did, however, acknowledge that humanity is "approaching new frontiers in copyright," where artists will use AI as a tool to create new work. She wrote that this would create "challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary" to copyright AI-created art

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US federal judge - The Verge

There's some minimum level of human input that needs to be added. The US Copyright Office has ruled that simply selecting an AI output to publish is not sufficient

Ultimately (in US law) it's probably going to be up to the Supreme Court (and/or Congress). I imagine the Supreme Court will do whatever benefits large corporations and/or reactionary religious organizations and the right-wing the most. So there's a good chance they'll give you the ruling you want and restrict GAI to IP owners and their licensees, effectively granting exclusive access to mega-corporations that have IP rights to a large enough data-set. Commercial artists, writers, and actors will still be out of work, but at least we'll have endless multiverses worth of further iterations of familiar IP... and some really weird stuff too, almost certainly including some interesting creative leaps (provided they're profitable enough...).

There's no legal requirement to indicate which parts have been generated by AI, or used AI in some capacity (most cellphone photos have been using AI for a while, incidentally), that would only have to be specified during a lawsuit for infringement---or if applying directly to the US Copyright Office to confirm the copyright, which is not necessary if the work is copyrightable:

Quote

The author of a work has a copyright to the work as soon as it is created. All s/he has to do is "fix the original work in a tangible medium of expression," meaning either putting pen to paper or just saving a word document.

Is a copyright date the same as a publication date? | New Media Rights

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 August 2023 - 12:37 PM