US judge: Art created solely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted
"US copyright law protects only works of human creation," judge writes.
@arstechnica I hope this ruling the AI "art" cannot be copyrighted stands.It would effectively eliminate the incentive of trying to sell AI-produced content.
I don't think it would.
So long as the seller gets enough of a paycheck on the first sell it might not matter to him whether he has copyright to maintain a monopoly on future sales anyway.
@Corb_The_Lesser @volkris @arstechnica It won’t. Classic example of supply and demand. It’ll cost next to nothing to produce, there’s gonna be fuckheaps of AI “content” everywhere. Can’t sell sand in Sahara.
If you’ve spent any time at all on, say, Adobe stock lately you know I’m right.
If that's the case then none of this matters anyway since my copyright on my production doesn't buy me anything if you can escape my monopoly by trivially producing what you want instead of buying my thing.
@Corb_The_Lesser @volkris @arstechnica copyright doesn’t stop people from buying someone elses product instead of yours, that is correct.
I do not think that means creative output will be a hard sell. Quite the opposite, but it will demand more of creatives. The hacks will go.
@thelovebing @volkris @arstechnica If I make it, all rights to it are mine. Copyright law is a tool that allows me to monetize what I made by, in effect, licensing some of those rights.
In any case, software has no rights.
Content that's not copyrighted can, and often will, be copied and redistributed at will. Who would pay if they weren't clueless?
Not quite.
Copyright doesn't allow you to monetize what you made. You can do that even without copyright law. You can even license permission to use the work even without copyright.
It's just that copyright prevents other people from doing the same, magnifying--not creating--your ability.
@volkris @thelovebing @arstechnica I don't want to magnify my creating ability. I want to create something and magnify my profit.
If a thing is not protected from indiscriminate copying and redistribution for free, there's no profit in it.
This is why Linux, for example, is no longer sold in in retail stores, as it was in the pre-broadband 1990's. Who would buy a box of Red Hat or Suse for $39.95 when they can get it at no cost?
There are so many counterexamples to your claim, ranging from pre-copyright business through profit from things that are public domain through business models that profit from the first sale regardless of what happens afterward.
Heck, you do realize people pay for Linux today, right? There are companies today profiting from Linux.
Who pays for it? Well, there are plenty of different business models built around free software.
Sure, it's nice to have a government granted monopoly, but there are ways to make money even without that favor.
OF COURSE copyright is monopoly.
It's silly to say it's not a monopoly because I can sell something completely different.
If I can't print a book without your permission that describes the government enforced monopoly you have over that book.
The entire point of intellectual property laws is to establish and enforce monopolies to benefit creators, for better or worse.
@arstechnica @Corb_The_Lesser
@Corb_The_Lesser @volkris @arstechnica You are evidently an idiot. I have no time for idiots.
@volkris @arstechnica @Corb_The_Lesser Copyright isn’t monopoly. I write a book you can write another, I make a record you are free to make one too. What you’re not allowed to do is print my book without asking permission. You are of course also welcome to publish your (not mine) album and make it free for anyone to copy and use.
Now, as with most things there are plenty of details worth discussing.