Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

This is going to become a huge problem.

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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 someone sets up a program to do something, do they own the output from that program, e.g. compiled code? My understanding is yes -- is that wrong?

I also imagine writing the program to create songs would count as a creative act.

I don't think that's right.

For example, when Clippy pops up and helps me write my novel, Microsoft doesn't have any copyright claims.

> I also imagine writing the program to create songs would count as a creative act.

Yes! You would own the copyright on the creator program, but not the created works.

In spite of the downvotes, namelost is correct.

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]

https://artlawjournal.com/ai-machine-copyright/

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com