←back to thread

728 points freetonik | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.431s | source
Show context
Waterluvian ◴[] No.44976790[source]
I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

replies(16): >>44976860 #>>44976869 #>>44976945 #>>44977015 #>>44977025 #>>44977121 #>>44977142 #>>44977241 #>>44977503 #>>44978050 #>>44978116 #>>44978159 #>>44978240 #>>44978311 #>>44978533 #>>44979437 #
EarlKing ◴[] No.44978240[source]
It's not just about how you got there. At least in the United States according to the Copyright Office... materials produced by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright. So, yeah, some people want to know for licensing purposes. I don't think that's the case here, but it is yet another reason to require that kind of disclosure... since if you fail to mention that something was made by AI as part of a compound work you could end up losing copyright over the whole thing. For more details, see [2] (which is part of the larger report on Copyright and AI at [1]).

--

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

replies(2): >>44979135 #>>44979585 #
1. ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44979135[source]
> • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.

> • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material

> • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.

replies(1): >>44984632 #
2. EarlKing ◴[] No.44984632[source]
Original expression, yes, however you should've kept reading:

"In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 24 The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.25 This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry." "If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it."

The office has been quite consistent that works containing both human-made and AI-made elements will be registerable only to the extent that they contain human-made elements.