Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9089875" data-attributes="member: 42856">Let's say "generates" then. The CJUE (nor the original German court that decided that it was OK to sample in the case of 2 second sample) doesn't consider how the sampling is done or whether sampling is art or not. It considers the question, fundamental in IP: is the product being distributed by the defendant (irrespective of how it is made) copying the totality of an IP-protected product, or a recognizable part of the plaintiff's existing IP-protected work. Can someone look at a product and say "I recognize this work of art in this product"? If yes, then it's forbidden (therefore, sampling long parts of musical pieces is forbidden unless one acquires the right to the original artwork), if no, then it is legal and the sampler could use it without IP-law problem.The distinction you make is irrelevant to the debate over potential copyright infringement made by the one who distributes the generated image. It is however extremely relevant to whether the distributed product can enjoy IP protection in itself. A court might rule that anything randomly generated can't be copyrighted by lack of intent, another might rule that the person running the generation will have created the thing in his mind and just used a tool to make a graphical representation of the image he has in his mind. A third court (or national juridiction) could decide that an IA can't create and therefore what it spurts out is public domain, but the transformations made to it before publication by a person are enough to make the end result IP-protected... It's a very interesting legal debate, but the outcome would be whether the generated product can be copyrighted or not, which is a different legal question. I am not sure having the generated product instantly be public domain would hamper the development of generative IA, but this is difficult to foresee (I'd say it would be problematic if one wanted to create  a company's logo, but it wouldn't be detrimental to people who use it for illustrative purpose in an otherwise copyrighted work).Whether it is ethical is another debate -- one that will be more difficult to solve as some societies might want to go more toward defending the individual rights of the copyrights holders, others will consider that the need of inexpensive, average quality art for all outweighs the need of the few enough that an exception can be made to the temporary monopoly usually granted to them, other will be happy with a solution where a special tax is created on profit made from IA as a proper compensation, and other might make art generation a public service offered in public libraries... lots of ethical solutions can be imagined, and the possibility of unified outcome are much lower than the "more or less unified" field of IP laws in the world)</blockquote>

Verification