Good. Current IP law is bloated overreach. It's not going to get nuked normally because of the inertia involved in exceeding its optimal duration multiple times over.
>you make a drawing that sells for hundreds of thousands and is universally loved and acclaimed >drawing was made in mspaint
Who owns copyright?
Why does Microsoft not have copyright over every single output from mspaint?
Google owns the rights to all its employees personal projects, even if they're not made on company time. It wouldn't surprise me if MS does have copyright over every single output from MS Paint.
>It wouldn't surprise me if MS does have copyright over every single output from MS Paint.
Wouldn't hold in court. I remember when some retarded game publisher tried to make all user-created content owned by them via EULA. They were sued, and they lost.
>drawing was made in mspaint
Made in and made by are completely different things. The problem is that AI actually makes stuff, but because it's neither sentient nor human it can't have rights, including property rights, including intellectual property rights.
Moreover, since all that AI produces is derivative of input material from people who own their intellectual property, and AI can't make use of fair use clauses since it again isn't human and has no rights, the output of the AI has to belong to the people who produced its training material.
Even still, if these people didn't explicitly consent to their intellectual property being used in a generative algorithm, the person responsible for instructing the algorithm to be trained on the given material is violating the creators' intellectual property rights.
you're an idiot who doesn't understand how the human creative process works
we all create in the same way an AI does. we use reflexes, emotions and past training with info from our 5 sense. an AI has usually only 1 sense and uses RNG for the generation instead of the history of emotional responses we have, that's it
An AI could be trained on real photos without any copyrighted stuff and then nothing you said matters
>AI invents something >You patent it under your name
Problem solved
>you make a drawing that sells for hundreds of thousands and is universally loved and acclaimed >drawing was made in mspaint
Who owns copyright?
Why does Microsoft not have copyright over every single output from mspaint?
The article in OP covers this topic, sort of
>drawing was made in mspaint
Made in and made by are completely different things. The problem is that AI actually makes stuff, but because it's neither sentient nor human it can't have rights, including property rights, including intellectual property rights.
Moreover, since all that AI produces is derivative of input material from people who own their intellectual property, and AI can't make use of fair use clauses since it again isn't human and has no rights, the output of the AI has to belong to the people who produced its training material.
Even still, if these people didn't explicitly consent to their intellectual property being used in a generative algorithm, the person responsible for instructing the algorithm to be trained on the given material is violating the creators' intellectual property rights.
but not covering things like the training data though
>you make a drawing that sells for hundreds of thousands and is universally loved and acclaimed >drawing was made in mspaint
Who owns copyright?
Why does Microsoft not have copyright over every single output from mspaint?
>drawing was made in mspaint
Made in and made by are completely different things. The problem is that AI actually makes stuff, but because it's neither sentient nor human it can't have rights, including property rights, including intellectual property rights.
Moreover, since all that AI produces is derivative of input material from people who own their intellectual property, and AI can't make use of fair use clauses since it again isn't human and has no rights, the output of the AI has to belong to the people who produced its training material.
Even still, if these people didn't explicitly consent to their intellectual property being used in a generative algorithm, the person responsible for instructing the algorithm to be trained on the given material is violating the creators' intellectual property rights.
Ther person who uses the AI and obtains the result first.
In fact you can do that and not reveal you used AI so any attempt to prevent this is pointless.
Google owns the rights to all its employees personal projects, even if they're not made on company time. It wouldn't surprise me if MS does have copyright over every single output from MS Paint.
*except in California
and even so I don't think they try to enforce that clause ever unless an employee creates something in direct competition with Google like a cloud provider or a search engine
It would be so incredibility based if laws made it so any content created by AI automatically became public domain by virtue of the creator not actually existing
I think this is the right approach, but there might be workarounds, like getting a real artist to retouch your AI generated art, now you can claim there's a creator
If we lived in a society where the government served the PEOPLE and not their cronies, intellectual property would be illegal and everything would be public domain.
The notion of being able to own an idea is ridiculous.
Wait a minute... doesn't that mean that I can use AI generated stuff commercially without getting their super special commercial deals as opposed to end consumer deal?
>Transhumanists are one of the most schizophrenic groups of people on the planet.
This. Ban prescription glasses, prosthetics and clothes and tools.
God you're fucking stupid lol
Defining these simple technologies as being some fancy argumentation is part why the transhumanist cult is so mental.
We simply don't need any of those definitions upto and including being a full on cybernetic organism.
Cybernetics is cool, the transhumanist cult latched onto it and it's filled with scam artists, kooks and tech ceos who are into injecting the blood of teenagers.
>you put time, money and effort to made anything? >it's everybody's property now
Why are commies so brain dead? If you hate private property move to china or russia? oh wait you won't because you'll have to live with the consequences of your childish beliefs.
patents only serve to protect the livelihoods of inventors and creators, and morally speaking are only meant to expire once the patent holder has had their fill for long enough. the right and privilege to all creative works returning to public domain is understood in plain text. this is a solved problem; AI has no rights because it has no life
Who the fuck is Stephen Thales
Good. Current IP law is bloated overreach. It's not going to get nuked normally because of the inertia involved in exceeding its optimal duration multiple times over.
Just claim it was your idea?
>AI invents something
>AI can't be listed as inventor
Then who can? The guy who made the AI?
>AI invents something
>You patent it under your name
Problem solved
>Make an AI with the sole purpose of inventing things
>patent it all under your name
>become biggest patent troll in history
>profit
The garden gnomes of course.
>you make a drawing that sells for hundreds of thousands and is universally loved and acclaimed
>drawing was made in mspaint
Who owns copyright?
Why does Microsoft not have copyright over every single output from mspaint?
Google owns the rights to all its employees personal projects, even if they're not made on company time. It wouldn't surprise me if MS does have copyright over every single output from MS Paint.
Its absurd that they even claim them, but has it actually been tested in court?
>It wouldn't surprise me if MS does have copyright over every single output from MS Paint.
Wouldn't hold in court. I remember when some retarded game publisher tried to make all user-created content owned by them via EULA. They were sued, and they lost.
>drawing was made in mspaint
Made in and made by are completely different things. The problem is that AI actually makes stuff, but because it's neither sentient nor human it can't have rights, including property rights, including intellectual property rights.
Moreover, since all that AI produces is derivative of input material from people who own their intellectual property, and AI can't make use of fair use clauses since it again isn't human and has no rights, the output of the AI has to belong to the people who produced its training material.
Even still, if these people didn't explicitly consent to their intellectual property being used in a generative algorithm, the person responsible for instructing the algorithm to be trained on the given material is violating the creators' intellectual property rights.
you're an idiot who doesn't understand how the human creative process works
we all create in the same way an AI does. we use reflexes, emotions and past training with info from our 5 sense. an AI has usually only 1 sense and uses RNG for the generation instead of the history of emotional responses we have, that's it
An AI could be trained on real photos without any copyrighted stuff and then nothing you said matters
The article in OP covers this topic, sort of
but not covering things like the training data though
Ther person who uses the AI and obtains the result first.
In fact you can do that and not reveal you used AI so any attempt to prevent this is pointless.
*except in California
and even so I don't think they try to enforce that clause ever unless an employee creates something in direct competition with Google like a cloud provider or a search engine
It would be so incredibility based if laws made it so any content created by AI automatically became public domain by virtue of the creator not actually existing
I think this is the right approach, but there might be workarounds, like getting a real artist to retouch your AI generated art, now you can claim there's a creator
You just know the spineless yellow gutted rats at he govt, any govt, would never allow that shit. They would be paid a fortune to turn that shit down
If we lived in a society where the government served the PEOPLE and not their cronies, intellectual property would be illegal and everything would be public domain.
The notion of being able to own an idea is ridiculous.
But the people are retarded
Then nobody would create
Why not?
This would be great, but no fucking way is it going to be allowed.
>I wonder who is behind the post.
Wait a minute... doesn't that mean that I can use AI generated stuff commercially without getting their super special commercial deals as opposed to end consumer deal?
>plagiarize something
>say AI did it
>????
>profit
Just legally change your name to 'AI' before applying for patents.
>first name: Artificial
>last name: Intelligence
Transhumanists are one of the most schizophrenic groups of people on the planet.
They are pretty much a deranged cult.
That's it about OP's picture.
Has nothing to do with IP though, which is retarded but has nothing todo whatsoever with "AI".
schizo retard
>Transhumanists are one of the most schizophrenic groups of people on the planet.
This. Ban prescription glasses, prosthetics and clothes and tools.
God you're fucking stupid lol
Defining these simple technologies as being some fancy argumentation is part why the transhumanist cult is so mental.
We simply don't need any of those definitions upto and including being a full on cybernetic organism.
Cybernetics is cool, the transhumanist cult latched onto it and it's filled with scam artists, kooks and tech ceos who are into injecting the blood of teenagers.
retarded pseud schizo
>you put time, money and effort to made anything?
>it's everybody's property now
Why are commies so brain dead? If you hate private property move to china or russia? oh wait you won't because you'll have to live with the consequences of your childish beliefs.
>Edit picture made by AI
>Don't publish unedited picture
>Don't publish seed
>The only picture in circulation have your copyright (of edit)
>PROFIT
patents only serve to protect the livelihoods of inventors and creators, and morally speaking are only meant to expire once the patent holder has had their fill for long enough. the right and privilege to all creative works returning to public domain is understood in plain text. this is a solved problem; AI has no rights because it has no life
Shizo
AI will own nothing and it will be happy