Okay, I've read the relevant sections of the report, and no where does it suggest that robots should be given copyrights.
Iit just says that the legal issue should be decided by legislation. Considering that the UK has laws which differ from other EU member states, harmonizing the laws on this point makes sense.
It's not such a dumb idea; the UK already has such a copyright. It vests in the creator of the program that generated the content, as you would expect.
The output of Automated Insights' Wordsmith AI would technically not be copyrighted in the US because it wasn't made by a person, but it would be copyrighted in the UK. (Actually, it would be under copyright in the US; the bot doesn't actually write anything.)
Also, if this point isn't addressed then people will just fudge things and claim they are the creators of the content generated by their programs.
So it's a null result at worst, but possibly a positive result if this point is spelled out in law.
Lipsync is not the same as lipdub. They are almost the inverse in that lipsync has a person moving their lips in sync with a song, while lipdub has a new audio dubbed over the top of an existing video
This isn't a royalty suit over sale/license, and it almost certainly won't get to class status.
The simple fact is S&S sold the book with its non-fiction division (S&S Macmillan, the name was) in 1998. This book has been published by Wiley for the past couple decades. (http://ebookne.ws/1WLuB43)
I'm not quite sure how this case will shake out, but I know it's not going to be the royalty suit we all expected.
Seven or eight years ago a friend of mine (a British academic) took my advice and used the DMCA to get her spouse's info removed from a neo-nazi website based in the US (the spouse is middle eastern).
The info had been scraped from a personal site, so I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. I think she even went on to write a paper about it.
I don't think ti would have worked as well now. Clearly the environment has changed.
Being a cop may be a dangerous job, but how much of that is self-inflicted? I mean, it looks like they are in more danger from stressing out over the dangers than from the public.
I looked into this in 2013, and the lyrics may or may not be copyrightable in the US. That point has not been settled in US courts, but it has been decided elsewhere. The UK has a copyright law which covers computer-generated content, while Australia has a high court ruling which goes the other way and may cover these lyrics.
A US ruling will likely come down to the degree that a human participated in the creation. And that will turn on nitty gritty technical details, so I would not assume that all the cases will be decided the same way.
Stories written by the Wordsmith bot by Automated Insights, for example, will likely be covered under copyright because of the creation process.
Said process starts with a person handing the bot a MadLibs-style template to fill out with data drawn from a spreadsheet. (I got in on the recent Wordsmith beta.) Since that template was made by a person, any output would arguably also be under copyright.
Or at least that is my take. A judge could rule the other way.
On the post: Another Dumb Idea Out Of The EU: Giving Robots & Computers Copyright
Re: Mike screwed up
dammit.
Right now I'm really wishing for a delete button.
On the post: Another Dumb Idea Out Of The EU: Giving Robots & Computers Copyright
Mike screwed up
Iit just says that the legal issue should be decided by legislation. Considering that the UK has laws which differ from other EU member states, harmonizing the laws on this point makes sense.
On the post: Another Dumb Idea Out Of The EU: Giving Robots & Computers Copyright
The output of Automated Insights' Wordsmith AI would technically not be copyrighted in the US because it wasn't made by a person, but it would be copyrighted in the UK. (Actually, it would be under copyright in the US; the bot doesn't actually write anything.)
Also, if this point isn't addressed then people will just fudge things and claim they are the creators of the content generated by their programs.
So it's a null result at worst, but possibly a positive result if this point is spelled out in law.
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Big Loss To Record Labels In Their Quixotic Lawsuit Against Vimeo For Lipdubs
Re: Re:
Yes, that is lipdub, just as I described.
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Big Loss To Record Labels In Their Quixotic Lawsuit Against Vimeo For Lipdubs
Here's a lipdub:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjaZNYSt7o0
Here's a lipsync:
https://www.youtube.com/user/LipSyncBattle
On the post: Author Sues Publisher For Portraying eBook Licenses As 'Sales' To Pay Out Fewer Royalties
The simple fact is S&S sold the book with its non-fiction division (S&S Macmillan, the name was) in 1998. This book has been published by Wiley for the past couple decades. (http://ebookne.ws/1WLuB43)
I'm not quite sure how this case will shake out, but I know it's not going to be the royalty suit we all expected.
On the post: The DMCA Should Not Be An All Purpose Tool For Taking Down Content; And It's Espeically Bad For Harassment
The info had been scraped from a personal site, so I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. I think she even went on to write a paper about it.
I don't think ti would have worked as well now. Clearly the environment has changed.
On the post: Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book
Re: It's only IP post-mortem
... crickets ...
On the post: Game Critic Keeps YouTube Vids Ad-Free By Creating ContentID Feeding Frenzy
That's gotta be the dumbest idea since ContentID.
No, wait ...
On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad
On the post: Congressman Wants To Make Attacking A Cop A Federal 'Hate' Crime
Re: The long history of cop discrimination
Police do have a long history of being hassled by law enforcement simply because they are police.
On the post: Congressman Wants To Make Attacking A Cop A Federal 'Hate' Crime
dangerous occupation?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87825
Being a cop may be a dangerous job, but how much of that is self-inflicted? I mean, it looks like they are in more danger from stressing out over the dangers than from the public.
On the post: Without Copyright Infringement, Deadpool Doesn't Get Made
Re: The licensing was not a "nightmare"
On the post: Ridiculous Copyright Fight Still Keeping The Only Video Of The First Super Bowl Locked Up
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ridiculous Copyright Fight Still Keeping The Only Video Of The First Super Bowl Locked Up
Re:
On the post: Copyright Question: Does David Bowie Get The Copyright On Computer Generated Lyrics?
A US ruling will likely come down to the degree that a human participated in the creation. And that will turn on nitty gritty technical details, so I would not assume that all the cases will be decided the same way.
Stories written by the Wordsmith bot by Automated Insights, for example, will likely be covered under copyright because of the creation process.
Said process starts with a person handing the bot a MadLibs-style template to fill out with data drawn from a spreadsheet. (I got in on the recent Wordsmith beta.) Since that template was made by a person, any output would arguably also be under copyright.
Or at least that is my take. A judge could rule the other way.
On the post: ESPN Employees Keep Failing To Disclose Their Advertising Tweets As Advertising
Re: eh?
If you mean the latter, that lack of a notice is a violation of FTC guidelines.
On the post: Richard Prince Finally Sued (Again) For Copyright Infringement Over His 'Instagram' Art
Re:
On the post: Richard Prince Finally Sued (Again) For Copyright Infringement Over His 'Instagram' Art
Fixed it for you.
He just wants to sell his stuff for a lot of money.
Fixed it for you.
On the post: CBS Sues Over Star Trek Fan Film Because It Sounds Like It's Going To Be Pretty Good
The 20 minute teaser looks awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1_8IV8uhA
It makes the last three official ST movies look like shit.
Next >>