Article title
The creativity of the nervous network has led some to consider whether there is a need to change the existing laws in the united states that grant copyright protection only to works created by human beings。
Models that automatically generate text paragraphs or digital art are becoming more popular, using them to write fantastic novels, sell copies and produce meme and magazine cover. With the commercialization of artificial intelligence technologies, content created automatically by software flows into the internet, both for good and for bad. Are these elements protected by copyright law
Take, for example, the cover of the world's first artificially intelligent magazine, recently released by the fashion magazine cosmopolitan: a tall astronaut walks on the surface of a planet with a dark sky on his back, spreading objects like stars and gases. This image was created by model dall-e 2 of the artificial intelligence research company openai. Karen cheng, the creative director, said that he had tried various text tips to guide dall-e2 in producing a perfect picture。
Who owns the copyright? Who's the author of this picture
Copyright lawyer mike wolfe states that the answer may depend on how much manual input is required to create something。
Wolf noted: “where artificial intelligence plays an important role in the creation of works, there are still some ways of obtaining copyright protection. Even if artificial intelligence is very powerful, there may be considerable room for human creativity. If artificial intelligence helps to generate a song and adds a bass melody, creative professionals can fill the gap in order to produce a cohesive piece of music, thereby making the work more complete.”
According to wolfe, in practice this may mean that the main melody or the bass melody can be used freely by third parties because they are machine-generated and not protected by copyright, but one cannot copy the entire song individually. However, it may not be easy to separate human and machine labour. In the case of returning to the cosmopolitan cover, it is unclear which parts of the image were created by dall-e2 and which parts were created by people。
The creators usually exert the least influence on the output of models, especially for visual art systems such as dall-e 2. For example, many have tried to use similar systems, such as craiyon or midjourney, to modify text tips without affecting the images generated. Under united states copyright law, these images are not technically protected by copyright. According to the report of the united states copyright authority, “to acquire the `signature' of a work, it must be created by human beings”
Stephen thaler, the founder of the software company imagination engineerings in missouri, was deeply aware of this. He attempted to apply for copyright for a digital image which he claimed was “auto-created by computer algorithms operating on the machine”, which was rejected by the copyright board. He wished to register his software as the author of the picture, and, given his ownership of the machine, he wished to obtain the right to transfer the copyright of the image。
Article 1, paragraph 8, of the united states constitution grants congress the right to protect intellectual property rights: “to promote the advancement of scientific and practical arts by safeguarding the exclusive rights of authors and inventors over their works and inventions for a certain period of time”
Taylor's lawyer ryan abbott argued that the refusal of the united states copyright agency to register him as an artificial intelligence author was wrong. Albert states: “advisory intelligence is capable of performing functional creative outputs without traditional human authors, and the protection of artificially generated works through copyright is essential to promote the production of socially valuable content. Such protection is necessary under the current legal framework.”
However, not all legal experts agreed with him. Wolf said: “creators should always have the responsibility to prove that the copyright they receive benefits the public. In my view, the machine does not bear that burden. It seems unlikely that the granting of rights to artificially intelligently generated works will now make us richer or more advanced
== sync, corrected by elderman ==
