There Is An Easy Answer To Whether Machines Should Get Copyright Rights And It Comes Down To Copyright's Purpose
from the promote-the-progress dept
As the march of progress of robotics and artificial intelligence continues on, it seems that questions of the effects of this progress will only increase in number and intensity. Some of these questions are very good. What effect will AI have on employment? What safeguards should be put in place to neuter AI and robotics and keep humankind the masters in this relationship? These are questions soon to break through the topsoil of science fiction and into the sunlight of reality and we should all be prepared with answers to them.
Other questions are less useful and, honestly, far easier to answer. One that continues to pop up every now and again is whether machines and AI that manage some simulacrum of creativity should be afforded copyright rights. It's a question we've answered before, but which keeps being asked aloud with far too much sincerity.
This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author. This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world.
Unlike with earlier computer-generated works of art, machine learning software generates truly creative works without human input or intervention. AI is not just a tool. While humans program the algorithms, the decision making – the creative spark – comes almost entirely from the machine.
Let's get the easy part out of the way: the culminating sentence in the quote above is not true. The creative spark is not the artistic output. Rather, the creative spark has always been known as the need to create in the first place. This isn't a trivial quibble, either, as it factors into the simple but important reasoning for why AI and machines should certainly not receive copyright rights on their output.
That reasoning is the purpose of copyright law itself. Far too many see copyright as a reward system for those that create art rather than what it actually was meant to be: a boon to an artist to compensate for that artist to create more art for the benefit of the public as a whole. Artificial intelligence, however far progressed, desires only what it is programmed to desire. In whatever hierarchy of needs an AI might have, profit via copyright would factor either laughably low or not at all into its future actions. Future actions of the artist, conversely, are the only item on the agenda for copyright's purpose. If receiving a copyright wouldn't spur AI to create more art beneficial to the public, then copyright ought not to be granted.
To be fair to the Phys.org link above, it ultimately reaches the same conclusion.
The most sensible move seems to follow those countries that grant copyright to the person who made the AI's operation possible, with the UK's model looking like the most efficient. This will ensure companies keep investing in the technology, safe in the knowledge they will reap the benefits. What happens when we start seriously debating whether computers should be given the status and rights of people is a whole other story.
Except for two things. First, seriously debating the rights of computers compared with people is exactly what the post is doing by giving oxygen to the question of whether computers ought to get one of those rights in copyright benefits. Second, the EU's method isn't without flaw, either. Again, we're talking about the purpose being the ultimate benefit to the public in the form of more artistic output, but the EU's way of doing things divorces artistic creation from copyright. Instead, it awards copyright to the creator of the creator, which might spur more output of more AI creators, but how diverse of an artistic output is the public going to receive from an army of AI? We might be able to have a legitimate argument here, but there is a far simpler solution.
Machines don't get copyright, nor do their creators. Art made by enslaved AI is art to be enjoyed by all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ai, copyright, incentives, machine learning
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This statement shows AI should get copyrights because how many artists continue to create 70 years after their death?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What happens when...
Would this open up a new form of trolling where the creators of these pacts could sue any author of any creative work for 'plagiarism' given that these 'poems' are just sentences that have already been written and are owned by a few of these AI-Language Squatters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What happens when...
* It's not like the owners of copyright have an absolute methodology of recognizing those things they own a copyright on, or even a comprehensive list of all copyrighted things.
** Which assumes that there will ever be a public domain again.
*** What will prevent the machine from creating a 22nd century Mona Lisa or a Last Supper, or one of Beethoven's symphonies, or a 'newly created' The Count of Monte Cristo?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Purpose of copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What happens when...
It seems to me that the first thing and AI intended to create copyrightable works would need to know what is already copyrighted to prevent plagiarism, sampling, or use of already copyrighted visuals
They could do that. Or they could go down the opposite route and specifically prevent the AI from gaining any information about already existing works, such that the AI could then use independent creation as a defense against claims of copyright infringement brought against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artificial intelligence, however far progressed, desires only what it is programmed to desire.
Regardless of how complex the code, machines don't desire anything. They evaluate variables based on defined criteria and run more code based on the results of that evaluation. The key part of "artificial intelligence" isn't "intelligence", it's "artificial."
I honestly don't understand human kind's incessant need to anthropomorphize absolutely everything. Only humans have human desires and needs. Stop attributing those wants and needs to inorganic objects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
computers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or death+70, but when/how does an AI die? Suddenly the '70' seems like the reasonable half of that deal...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What happens when...
There is also the concept that not knowing a law is no excuse (except in the case of law enforcement officials, it seems) then it might be that because there is a claim of no knowledge it is OK, but that has been argued in some cases of sampling and it was difficult to prove that no knowledge existed. How does one prove a negative? Will the owners of the proprietary AI software open the source code up for inspection in order to prove the lack of knowledge? I doubt it.
It would be better to leave copyright to human creativity, as in the case of that stupid monkey that PETA is trying to 'represent', or more accurately use for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I always felt that one of the (long term, less pragmatic) goals of AI research was to find the point at which a set of rules and instructions hits the complexity at which it does have something that's crossed the line into actual desires and self-awareness. I.e., to find the limits of what we can call a machine (such as our own meat-machines).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you didn't research the law before investing millions, you're a fool. And if the copyright goes to the AI, how does that help those who invested in the system?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They evaluate variables based on defined criteria and run more code based on the results of that evaluation.
Sure. And humans may or may not do this as well, the question is still wide open on that topic.
A good fraction of those in psychology/neurology subscribe to schools of thought wherein neural activity is a deterministic chemical/electrical phenomenon which gives rise to what we consider "human desires and needs" through a deterministic process far too complicated for us to model as of now, but otherwise similar to computing.
On the other hand, mind-body duality is still an active school of thought in psychology (and to some extent neurology), and of those who think the mind is entirely physical several have put forth suggestions that significant portions of neural activity are based in quantum level probabilistic effects and therefore not deterministic in the same sense as silicon computing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does a Spirograph get the copyright on the drawing that it produces? Or should the inventor of the Spirograph get it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tools versus Artists
If the toolmaker can claim copyright though, expect to see paintbrush manufacturers claiming ownership of painted portraits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tools versus Artists
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fuck all ya'll
Sincerely,
~The Middle Men
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tools versus Artists
Imaging all the proceeds of their usage!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Similar to the monkey selfie
[ link to this | view in thread ]
since when do creators need copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Similar to the monkey selfie
Because once AI's are granted these rights, then surely monkeys will be demanding them next.
After that...invertebrates?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not only does your simple solution face you with the unenviable task of determining exactly where the line is for what is program output and what is A.I. creation but if anyone actually could define that line it would also create a chilling effect against A.I. uses by content businesses who would lose their copyright if they used A.I. in their content generation programs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Premised on lunatics who believe in "AI", that it's at all close, or that rational persons will extend copyright to a machine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Haven't you heard of Digital Signatures?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The future!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Premised on lunatics who believe in "AI", that it's at all close, or that rational persons will extend copyright to a machine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What happens when...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it awards copyright to the creator of the creator
Does it really matter if they rip off an artist, the artists children or a computer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What happens when...
Wait, those aren't AI?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So, can I copyright my son makes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The point associated with "far too many" is actually much closer to the purpose of copyright as contemplated by the Constitution than is the point associated with "actually was meant to be".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ok. Once again:
The letter of the law ALWAYS trumps any (misguided) arguments about the spirit in which it was written. Especially when it's right there at the beginning of the Copyright Clause.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the plan to end all copyright
1. Make an AI run on a computer to generate all possible works. Image, text, whatever...
2. Shoot a bullet in the computer. (First check that killing an AI doesn't count as murder. You never with those lawmakers.)
3. Wait for 70 years. As the AI owns every copyright, except that of works created before itself, nobody is going to ask for copyright extension on its behalf.
4. Everything is now public domain.
(Note that this is not to be taken seriously. Seems obvious to me, but some people seem to have a seriously broken sarcasm-meter.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What happens when...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Premised on lunatics who believe in "AI", that it's at all close, or that rational persons will extend copyright to a machine.
It's pretty clear that the persons you want to believe are rational are anything but.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: computers
Also, by your logic when the computer is off it's "dead". That being said, the computer in an on state would be 'alive'. You would extend the copyright every time you turn on the computer by this logic.
Either way, you've made a catch 22 and/or a Schrödinger's cat type situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What happens when...
If birthday, say age (or not), say something funny, say something else.
If illness, say something conciliatory, say something uplifting.
etc.
The difference between greeting cards, and writing an expressive, heartfelt note might just be the difference between creativity of humans vs AI.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It comes down to copyright's purpose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's even easier...
They don't fit in human law, don't try for opportunistic reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, everyone knows that copyright is a tool to ensure corporate profits. Ask anyone in Washington or the copyright industry and they'll tell you that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Real Simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's even easier...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As noted in the article, UK law gives the rights to the person that set up the machine, and from memory, sets a fixed time (no life +70). It doesn't seem like a terrible system (although copyrights should have a much shorter duration, no statutory minimum damages and more exceptions). If AI gets to the point of getting it's own rights we can think about an update to give the machine it's own rights then. That probably needs machines to be recognised as cognisant legal persons and at the moment pigs are further forward in the queue.
One thing that gave me pause was the idea of a "Shakespeare's Monkey" computer that churns ou copyright works. On reflection, UK law already has the answer. A copyright claim needs to show copying, so a huge database of dross with a few gems will struggle to show that the gems were copied.
That doesn't address trolling, but the UK’s fee shifting by default does go some way to addressing the trolling problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]