Cool. Now someone needs to invent an application that can listen/watch/look at some media (movies, songs, books) and create something nearly similar.
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
641 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
3813 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
Wow this is huge. Let’s hope it holds up to years and years of legal threats from lobbyists
Ehhhh. This isn't as exciting as you might think for, say, graphics. It's predicated on the fact that in the case, there's no human involvement.
Howell found that “courts have uniformly declined to recognize copyright in works created absent any human involvement,” citing cases where copyright protection was denied for celestial beings, a cultivated garden, and a monkey who took a selfie.
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works,” the judge wrote.
The rise of generative AI will “prompt challenging questions” about how much human input into an AI program is necessary to qualify for copyright protection, Howell said, as well as how to assess the originality of AI-generated art that comes from systems trained on existing copyrighted works.
But this case “is not nearly so complex” because Thaler admitted in his application that he played no role in creating the work, Howell said.
They're just gonna nail down the line judicially on how much human involvement is required and then they'll have a human do that much.
I mean, AI tools are gonna be just increasingly incorporated into tools for humans to use.
It might be significant for something like chatbot output, though.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Copyright is outrageously long, anyway. Seriously, who benefits from works after the creator is long dead? AI works won't ever replace a human's level of ingenuity, creativity and imagination, let alone at the spur of the moment. That being said, what it does interrupt based on what we ask from it can be fresh and aid in the development or adoption of ideas we may not have thought of before. Being in the public domain is the best outcome.
Seriously, who benefits from works after the creator is long dead?
Those that lobbied to increase the duration of copyright - the mega corps that have sucked up a whole bunch of copyrighted works and are tightly controlling it to squeeze as much money out of it as they can.