Imagine an AI that generates songs. Imagine it generates millions of songs.
What are the odds some of those songs will accidentally and independently "copy" features deemed distinctive and commercially valuable in existing songs under copyright?
Is this deliberate creative copyright infringement surrounded by noise, or is it the result of an aggressively fast random search of a limited symbol space - and what is the difference?
Copyright law is going to have to change. It's either going to have to become irrelevant, or it's going to have to support hybrid not-quite-patent not-quite-copyright IP protection of generative/creative processes/personas, either manual or automated.
> Imagine an AI that generates songs. Imagine it generates millions of songs. What are the odds some of those songs will accidentally and independently "copy" features deemed distinctive and commercially valuable in existing songs under copyright?
Another question is: what are the odds that a future song will inadvertantly copy one of the computer-generated songs?
Given that there are only a finite number of notes and chords, that some note-sequences are more "musical" than others, and the computer can easily generate billions of songs, one can imagine a musical copyright troll (like a patent troll, but with copyrights):
1. creating a large number of songs on a computer
2. writing software to detect similarities between new songs and the computer song collection
3. shaking down songwriters/artists for profit
> Copyright law is going to have to change.
People have been saying that for some time. My own take is that it will change when it no longer suits the rich and powerful.
Copyright does not work that way. Copyright awards protections to a creative act.
If you use a computer to generate songs, there is no creative act, and no copyright.
If you copy a song someone else generated with a computer, there is no creative act, and no copyright.
If you independently write a song, and a computer independently creates an identical song, there is a creative act, and you own the copyright to the song you created (but the song the computer created is in the public domain).
If two people independently write the same song, then they both own the copyrights to their respective songs.
If there is not substantial creative expression by the user in the final output, then the output is in the public domain. And independent creation is a defense against copyright infringement claims.
"...authorship rights should go to the user when the user makes a very substantial contribution to the output. But when the user does very little and most of the output is left up to the AI machine, then it is less likely that the user may own the copyright in the output. " [CONTU 1974 - yes, 1974]
> What are the odds some of those songs will accidentally and independently "copy" features deemed distinctive and commercially valuable in existing songs under copyright?
This isn't a conflict under US copyright law - independent creation is a defense against copyright infringement under US copyright law. In contrast, patents apply even with independent creation.
If the camera was in a continuous shooting mode, I take it you're suggesting that the initial frames were authored by the photographer, and at some point the authorship changed after the monkeys had moved the camera enough? And the final frames in the sequence again became authored by the photographer when he grabbed the camera back?
What if it had been wind moving the camera, rather than monkeys? Do you feel his authorship would have been equally lost in the middle of that sequence of frames?
"""
They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button,” he told The Telegraph in 2011. “The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn’t worked that out yet."
"""
There is some doubt whether Slater actually used a remote trigger, but that wouldn't have been as good a story as the "monkey selfie", so the image may not have gone viral, though he'd have a better case to own the copyright.
