Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9464162" data-attributes="member: 42856">I wouldn't be so quick in saying that AI derived work can't be copyrighted. A Japanese author admitted to having written her prize-winning book with the help of AI, and the publisher expects the book to be protected by copyright like any other book. UK laws allows the operator of the program to claim copyright over a computer-generated work (at least according to this source, I won't claim expertise in UK copyright law), EU laws grants copyright to the human author as long as he expressive a creative intent which a prompt can fulfill, and it would be the defendant's task to prove there was no creative intent invovled <a href="https://pec.ac.uk/blog_entries/copyright-protection-in-ai-generated-works-2/" target="_blank">Copyright protection in AI-generated works: Evolving approaches in the EU and China - Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre</a> The same source then discusses a Beijing court case where sufficent creative work was found by choosing the software and selecting the image among several generations, which places the bar quite low in terms of necessary creative input.It might be that US laws won't grant copyright to US authors using AI, but this doesn't mean that &quot;AI products can't be copyrighted&quot; in general. It's certainly safer to assume it is copyrighted rather than assume &quot;since it's AI-generated, I can do whatever I want&quot;. And for the copyright-holder, it's safer to look at your local applicable laws before assuming you'll be protected as you'd be with any other work.Same with the legality of datascrapping, saying &quot;it's illegal&quot; is a highly dubious claim given the existence of 195 countries (using the UN definition of a country), not all of them having the same stance on data scrapping and copyright, instead covering a wide spectrum of positions (from &quot;datascrapping is illegal&quot; to &quot;it's allowed&quot; with some intermediate positions like &quot;it's allowed for non profit use&quot; or &quot;it's allowed unless an opt-out procedure is followed&quot;). It might be illegal for you to do datascrapping to train an AI model, but it doesn't make it illegal for others, like with most human activities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9464162, member: 42856"] I wouldn't be so quick in saying that AI derived work can't be copyrighted. A Japanese author admitted to having written her prize-winning book with the help of AI, and the publisher expects the book to be protected by copyright like any other book. UK laws allows the operator of the program to claim copyright over a computer-generated work (at least according to this source, I won't claim expertise in UK copyright law), EU laws grants copyright to the human author as long as he expressive a creative intent which a prompt can fulfill, and it would be the defendant's task to prove there was no creative intent invovled [URL='https://pec.ac.uk/blog_entries/copyright-protection-in-ai-generated-works-2/']Copyright protection in AI-generated works: Evolving approaches in the EU and China - Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre[/URL] The same source then discusses a Beijing court case where sufficent creative work was found by choosing the software and selecting the image among several generations, which places the bar quite low in terms of necessary creative input. It might be that US laws won't grant copyright to US authors using AI, but this doesn't mean that "AI products can't be copyrighted" in general. It's certainly safer to assume it is copyrighted rather than assume "since it's AI-generated, I can do whatever I want". And for the copyright-holder, it's safer to look at your local applicable laws before assuming you'll be protected as you'd be with any other work. Same with the legality of datascrapping, saying "it's illegal" is a highly dubious claim given the existence of 195 countries (using the UN definition of a country), not all of them having the same stance on data scrapping and copyright, instead covering a wide spectrum of positions (from "datascrapping is illegal" to "it's allowed" with some intermediate positions like "it's allowed for non profit use" or "it's allowed unless an opt-out procedure is followed"). It might be illegal[I] for you[/I] to do datascrapping to train an AI model, but it doesn't make it illegal [I]for others[/I], like with most human activities. [/QUOTE]

Verification