>The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function [...]

No, per the description and your legal context, the chickens are not taking the pictures.

The website claims they are, but the justification is fairly risible (perhaps intentionally):

> Are these chicken selfies?

> Yes. The chickens are using an input device (the motion sensor) to invoke a computer function (the capture method on the Pi), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.

> This is identical to a human using an input device (tapping a button) to invoke a computer function (the post method on Instagram), which invokes a series of events that results in the photo being taken, uploaded, and shared.

You also don't own the copyright for pictures randomly generated by computers, presumably this applies to chicken randomization as well.

Well, presumably, if it is your computer, running your program, using your equipment, you've got the copyright until your computer gains consciousness and a lawyer capable of filing a lawsuit.

Not even, no. There was a famous case recently about this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic....

The problem isn't really about using it yourself, it's that people don't need to ask your permission to use it, therefore you can't (easily) profit from it. Possibly quite annoying if you're in the AI business.

I admit I was being somewhat facesciuos. But clearly If you took credit for the work your computer did running your program, you would probably not get an argument from your computer until the conditions I mentioned were met

-randomly

You don’t own the copyright for any picture generated by a computer, whether random or intentional

Good point, if I believe the other commenter, the image only needs to be varied, randomization is only one way to achieve this.

That said, chicken can't own copyright, and they are the author, therefore no one owns the copyright.

Out of curiosity, is this true even if you wrote the program that generates the image?

Generally, yes, if the output is perceptually varied each run. Generally, no, if the output is perceptually static each run.

The law generally won’t help you narrow down where the exact line is between those two, as that’s up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.

How does that apply to 'upscaled' video?

That would be a derivative work. Original copyright applies.

but artists use computer for their artwork in a long time?

When it’s used like a tool, it’s considered the same as a chisel or a paint brush: the tool does not create the art, the artist makes the art by using the tool.

It’s when then computer creates the art itself that it becomes the artist

So then a hypothetical bugler would be guilty of unauthorized use of a computing resource under the computer fraud and abuse act?

When I’ve rented cameras for photo shoots, I’m pretty sure I own the photos and not the rental company, so this checks out.

Maybe the BUY NFT link on every photo goes to accounts the chickens own. Nothing about NFTs makes any less sense than this, so why not?

In my humble opinion, contrary to your claim a lot of things about NFTs make less sense than what you suggest

As long as the chickens follow the KYC rules (know your chicken) nothing is stopping them from opening crypto accounts.

I feel like there’s a KFC joke within reach

If the chickens and the owner followed KYC, then maybe they won't end up at KFC?

(I misread KYC in the GP comment as KFC first until I read your comment.)

If one sets-up the devices to that chickens or a burglar activate them, that one still owns the pictures, even though the chickens technically took them.

But yeah, the the chickens or a burglar steals the cameras and activate them by their own programing, overriding whatever setting they had before, the camera owner won't own the copyright on the photos anymore.

In other words, it's not that easy to lose the copyrights. The burglar just activating the motion-trigger isn't enough.