• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    When an AI can make that argument for themselves, then the law can change, until then, a human must be part of the creative process to hold copyright.

    A classic example is the monkey selfie. There’s no copyright because there was no human involved in the creation of the selfie.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a good thing that AI isn’t capable of being oppressed or enslaved. Because it’s currently less AI and more, janky code that does a thing, and sometimes does it correctly.

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And for the next 40 years it will likely remain science fiction.

            So there’s no point in fucking up all the case law for something that doesn’t exist. Seriously, copyright needs to be cut down, not expanded further. It’s already the life of the author plus 70 years. How does that even work? Copyright is meant to get humans to produce more creative works, so how the fuck does that work after death?

            The answer is, corporations that don’t die. They want more control, and want AI to make shit, so they don’t have to pay real people to do it.

            So no. No copyright for theoretical AI. no copyright for monkeys with names assigned by some third party. Just stop trying to expand copyright.