Feb

19

We sent my 2025 annual forecast to the Copyright office. They would not copyright it saying, “it was AI generated so could not be copyrighted.” We replied it was not AI, showing why so were finally approved. This raises an unraised question about AI protection. What is/will be the law??

Asindu Drileba comments:

The purpose of AI regulation is just so the big players can build a cartel and lock in the market. This is why people like Sam Altman say they "welcome it".

Big Al gets conspiratorial:

Not to be too conspiratorial, but…

OpenAI whistleblower found dead at 26 in San Francisco apartment

A former OpenAI employee, Suchir Balaji, was recently found dead in his San Francisco apartment, according to the San Francisco Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. In October, the 26-year-old AI researcher raised concerns about OpenAI breaking copyright law when he was interviewed by The New York Times.

Peter Ringel writes:

I always suspected, that the senator is a robot. His performance is inhuman!

Your work is obviously your work. But, what if one uses AI for ones work, creations and everything? It should be still your IP. We have musicians on this list, who use AI for inspirations and research. I constantly lookup code via AI, b/c I am not a good coder. But the final script is mine. I even run AI models locally. The opensource models like Facebook's LAMA. (for an easy install, i can recommend: msty.app)

There is creativity in asking questions, to squeeze the right results out of AI. Prompt engineering is a thing.

Pamela Van Giessen prompts:

No doubt every single publishers’ lawyers are fighting the ability for AI generated anything to be copyrighted because so much AI is taking from existing copyrighted works, usually without permission or payment. Some publishers are feeding into AI programs with permission/payment (I think my previous employer, Wiley, is feeding at least some content into AI, for instance). This is a lousy deal for the authors and artists. The publishers will make vast sums, much like Spotify, and the content creators (I really hate that phrase) will get less than pennies on the dollar.

Liberals have done a great job of deflecting the real problem with platforms (omg, no content moderation or fact checking, TikTok is spying on Americans, the world will end!). The real problem with platforms is that they steal content, outright theft. And where is your government protecting you from this theft? NOWHERE.

Easan Katir relates:

I sent an unpublished manuscript to an Oxford-educated editor, asking her to edit. She asked if any of it was AI. I replied truthfully that I wrote most of it but I asked AI to add some. She declined the job, I guess making a stand: humans vs. AI. Fortunately or not, we know which is going to win.

Peter Ringel offers:

U.S. Copyright Office says AI generated content can be copyrighted — if a human contributes to or edits it

Pamela Van Giessen comments:

I imagine that the courts are going to get involved at some point. Since much AI is from existing copyrighted material, some (most?) used without permission, someone is going to challenge copyrighted AI that is really someone else’s material.

Jordan Low agrees:

precisely. i have been seeing a lot of content creators complain that their work is just automatically reworded into another article without attribution.

Update: Big Al offers an historical lagniappe:

The battle of Cúl Dreimhne (also known as the Battle of the Book) took place in the 6th century in the túath of Cairbre Drom Cliabh (now County Sligo) in northwest Ireland. The exact date for the battle varies from 555 AD to 561 AD. 560 AD is regarded as the most likely by modern scholars. The battle is notable for being possibly one of the earliest conflicts over copyright in the world.

Stefan Jovanovich writes:

The first written mention of the Battle of the Book occurs in the Life of Saint Columba composed by Manus O'Donnell in 1532. Britain did not have a formal copyright law until the passage of the Statute of Anne in 1710; that gave authors their first ownership claim to their writings. Until then the Stationers' Company had an exclusive right to all printing and publishing in Britain. The term "copyright" comes from the right a member of the Stationers' Company had to copy a written manuscript into print after the text had been registered with the Stationers' Company. The charter for the Stationers' Company was granted in 1557 by Queen Mary and King Philip, then confirmed in 1559 by Queen Elizabeth. The Company had the authority to seize "offending books".

Carder Dimitroff adds:

From March's Library: Early printed books were customized with hand-painted illumination for the wealthy.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search