That is not the law. The actual work must demonstrate creativity, and a mechanically generated works of this sort do not.
"The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable."
The law here lags behind the technology. By procedurally generating something like a landscape, a programmer can creatively define a whole set of possible landscapes. It's fallacious to say that this can't involve artistic awareness and creativity. Here, the law is trying to apply 19th century models to 21st century media.
> It's fallacious to say that this can't involve artistic awareness and creativity. Here, the law is trying to apply 19th century models to 21st century media.
A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to them. What awareness and creativity is shown by letting a computer make 1 million slightly different images?
All the creativity is in the programming, not in the result.
But this is problematic. Procedurally generated landscapes can still have a definite "feel" or "look." These attributes can be protected as "trade dress." But there is no way to preclude other attributes we haven't thought of yet.
A problem with copyrighting mechanically generated works is there is no end to them. What awareness and creativity is shown by letting a computer make 1 million slightly different images?
Yes, you're right, there are algorithms that actually don't show much creativity. But this is actually already covered in the "Threshold of creativity" laws -- if the declaration that the output of an algorithms cannot be protected is removed. If you apply most of the same "Threshold of creativity" laws to a notion of meta-creativity, you still arrive at a usable and coherent law.
All the creativity is in the programming, not in the result.
Clearly, the truth is that creativity can manifest in the result.
Also understand that modern technology makes the current formulation of the law problematic. What if I simply used cheap data storage to slurp the output of a program so that I could use the output of someone's copyrighted code without permission? I could imagine doing this to a procedurally generated MMO world. This would seem to make the practical effect of the law quite divergent from its intended effect. Introduce a notion of algorithmic meta-creativity, and the law would protect against that kind of infringement nicely.
That said, in many cases, it would be advisable for the copyright holder to not reserve copyrights for such media. But in that case, I think the providing the option is the wiser choice.
That's trademark, not copyright.
If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best that might be copyrightable.
On the other hand if you wrote a generic program that randomly adjusts the variables to make lots of nice looking landscapes then the landscapes are not copyrightable, even if you did a great job on the program so all the results were beautiful.
> Clearly, the truth is that creativity can manifest in the result.
That doesn't make it copyrightable. I could plant trees in a beautiful pattern, but I can not claim copyright on photographs taken of the result.
> What if I simply used cheap data storage to slurp the output of a program so that I could use the output of someone's copyrighted code without permission?
Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you "slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?
> I could imagine doing this to a procedurally generated MMO world. This would seem to make the practical effect of the law quite divergent from its intended effect.
And what's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person actually does.
You might be able to claim a dress trademark on the MMO world if it was distinct, but not copyright.
I never said it was copyright. Please readjust your mental model of who you're speaking to accordingly.
If you carefully tuned your program to create a single result you found best that might be copyrightable.
How is this different than carefully tuning your program to create a range of results with specific attributes? Example: All of the generated landscapes are aesthetically pleasing, but have enough open area next to obstacles to enable ambushes and also manage to look creepy at night... Such a result might indeed take
That doesn't make it copyrightable.
I'm saying that it should. IP laws date from a time where the kind of automation that makes the above possible was unthinkable. The assumption that an act of creation would result in a particular set of data is no longer warranted. Neither is the assumption that the automatic production of art is either not possible or would result in uninteresting and stereotypical output.
Not following. Does "cheap data storage" make a difference? How are you "slurping" the output? What sort of program is it?
Specifics aren't needed, but "cheap data storage" makes it possible to store the entire content of certain procedurally generated algorithms from earlier computer systems as files of ordinary size on today's typical machines. (Example: The entire Elite universe.)
And what's the problem? The procedurally generated MMO world is not copyrightable. That's the intended effect - to only copyright what a person actually does.
I'm saying that this very notion dates from a time when procedurally generated output was unimaginable to most people, and that to only copyright what a person actually does is trying to apply 19th century notions to 21st century technology. It's just like the early 20th century arguments for airlines having to pay farmers to overfly their land.
How can you extend copyright to include such a thing? Presumably you don't want to - but it on you to somehow distinguish between them.
Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope, a spinning top with paint.
And see this reply from someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8032980 - generated artwork has existed before computers, and it is not copyrightable.
I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not, you would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright would not apply. Because as broad as you make it sound I would not agree, but if more limited then maybe.
How can you extend copyright to include such a thing?
Simple, you wouldn't. Yes, but this is already covered in the concept of sufficient creativity.
Also, pre-computer automation was not as impossible as you might think, some examples: A double pendulum with a pen, a spirograph, a sand bucket on a rope, a spinning top with paint.
Also covered by "sufficient creativity" for trivial combinations of such machines. Now, if it was a system which balanced the spirographs and double pendulums in a tangible and describable way as to produce a finely balanced effect.
And see this reply from someone else... generated artwork has existed before computers, and it is not copyrightable.
Yes, but the degree of automation we have today completely changes the technological landscape in such a profound way, that anyone should be skeptical if such laws still apply.
I have not completely decided if I would agree with your proposal or not, you would need to be much more specific about the limits of where copyright would not apply.
Common sense and the market could resolve a lot of the potential problems you see. What use is a tool like a spirograph if you can't use the output freely? Tools with restrictive stipulations will eliminate themselves from the marketplace.
Things like a program that simply enumerates all 32x32 pixel images are transparent enough that a judge should be able to adjudicate properly. I can see, however, that there would be more complex cases, and the cost to society may not be worth the potential damage IP meta-squatters would incur.
If you fed in specific tuning parameters to the procedure and fine tuned them until you liked the output that might have a claim. But if you just let it work randomly and picked the ones you liked best that would not.
It's not enough to simply like the result, you have to actually do something to create that specific result.
"Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable."
But in this case he selected a site (wrote the code), recorded a pile of footage, and then went through and selected particular shots based on his own personal criteria.
If you leave a camera in public for a few days, then come back and edit the result into a movie you have copyright for the movie, but not for the individual stills that make it up.
To have copyright on the stills (rather than the compilation) you have to have some creativity into making them, not merely selecting them.
Notice also that many cameras these days will take many shots in rapid succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28photography%29)
And a photo is different from a video in the timing factor.
BTW Copyright laws are impossible to mathematically define - they always have a subjective factor: Does this seem creative or not?
And damned straight this seems creative. At least as creative as a typical snapshot. Do you disagree?
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
even if there was no creativity involved and thus the copyright would fail, it seems (IANAL) that it might put the melodies into the public domain, since how could somebody claim you had no right to use a melody that you had already published?
The project you describe seems to be based on a patent-like idea of copyright, where infringement is independent of whether or not the work is an actual derivative of the protected work.
You use the term "act of creation" as if he didn't engage in it. Not sure how you can claim that he didn't create the melodies, he did, doesn't matter that he didn't ever hear them, neither did Beethoven (you get my point). If he had any musical training he could credibly state that he was creating a Philip Glass style composition exploring the space of melodies blah blah blah. You don't think a skilled musician could characterize and categorize the different elements of this work? If he was serious about it, he could call it his ring cycle and start playing it, all the way through, a one hour performance a week.
And then I pointed out, and you ignored, that even if he didn't go out and claim copyright infringement, there is still the point that he insulated himself in a certain way from infringement claims from others.
I think he made an interesting philosophical point, I think you should chew on it in a more interesting way. In a case of an actual claim of infringement, he created lawyer fodder that could drag through courts for years, had he been a musician.
No, I don't think he overturned copyright law. To a large extent, judges make decisions based on practicalities more than they do on the letter of the law. The letter of the law comes up when there are colliding practicalities, and ambiguity in the law. Still, I think it's a more interesting thought exercise than you are giving it credit for.