Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Must the AI itself, otherwise it makes no sense. Though it makes none even for AI (at least at present), since it's far from human comparable.

It's not different from saying that monkey with a camera can have copyright, or someone giving monkey a camera gets it, if monkey makes a picture.

And in fact animal art, in the US, has been deemed ineligible for copyright [0]

I still think the law has much gray are in it though. In between Monkey and Human Photographer with a finished, edited photo, there are many shades of gray with any number of technology-mediated transformations of the work. AI-driven methods of sharpening a photo, for example [1]. Why should the photographer own the resulting AI-adjusted photo's copyright? Certainly they own the original, but it was AI that made the end result. Not unlike a writer making a corpus of text for Tencent's algorithm to learn how to write its own articles, I think.

I'm asking the question, because I honestly don't know: Where would/should the line be drawn?

[0] https://www.swansonlawmn.com/blog/2014/08/23/artwork-created...

[1] https://topazlabs.com/let-ai-sharpen-your-photos/

I suppose at some level of autonomy. A dummy tool is clearly conveying author's intent. Autonomous AI clearly breaks that authorship chain. So where exactly is an interesting question. I'd say it also has to tie into incentive to create which is the basis of copyright.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact