Artificial Intelligence Generated Works Under Copyright Law, NLUJ Law Review 6(2) 93 (2020)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
November 2018 2
November 2018 2 ...founded in 1914 We are a social and educational club where local writers meet to discuss the craft and business of writing. We also sponsor contests for our members and host ex- pert speakers from the worlds of writing, publishing, and entertainment. Officers President: Ron Aiken th Officers Emeritus: 1-18 MJCCA Book Festival Michael Brown Valerie Connors 2-3rd Atlanta Writers George Weinstein Clay Ramsey Conference Marty Aftewicz th Conference Director: 17 AWC Monthly Meeting George Weinstein Membership VP: Yvonne Green Programs VP: Valerie Connors Operations VP: Jennifer Wiggins Marketing and Public Relations VP: Barbara Brockway Contests, Awards, Scholarships VP: Clay Ramsey Secretary: Bill Black Treasurer: Ron Aiken Historian/By-Laws: George Weinstein eQuill Publisher: Gene Bowen http://www.facebook.com/people/Atlanta-WritersClub/100000367043383 http://twitter.com/atlwritersclub November Robin Conte - Member Minute 17th Erica Gerald Mason- 1st Speaker speakers Morri Creech - 2nd Speaker In 4 President’s Message 5 Future Events & the MIXER This 6 Photos of October Meeting Issue 7 Book to TV Workshop Photos 8 November Speakers Bios 9 Tamlin Hall, part 3 10 Fulmer Fiction Shop 12 AWC Member Opportunities 13 Crafting Your Protagonist 14 Computer Stories: AI 17 A Survivor’s Story Event 18 Boutique Writers Conference 19 Ongoing Opportunities 20 Critique Groups 22 Administrative Matters 23 Membership Info 24 Membership Form 3 Letter From the President A Character You Can Root For Dexter is one of my favorite television series. Based on Jeff Lindsay’s novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter, its unlikely protagonist is a serial killer. What? Who roots for a serial killer? But if the killer has been groomed to channel his murderous urges into meting out justice, that might be a character you can root for. -
The Sequel: the Rights of Authors Vs. Computer-Generated Read-Alike Works, 28 Loy
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 28 Number 1 Symposium: Is the UCC Dead, or Alive and Well? Practitioners' Perspectives and The Third Annual Fritz B. Burns Lecture on Rule Article 21 11 Reform: Progress or Retreat on Attorney Sanctions 11-1-1994 Hamlet II: The Sequel: The Rights of Authors vs. Computer- Generated Read-Alike Works Tal Vigderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tal Vigderson, Hamlet II: The Sequel: The Rights of Authors vs. Computer-Generated Read-Alike Works, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 401 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol28/iss1/21 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HAMLET H: THE SEQUEL? THE RIGHTS OF AUTHORS VS., COMPUTER-GENERATED "READ-ALIKE ' 1 WORKS I. Introduction ............................................. 402 II. You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: Why Current Law is Not Equipped for a New World .............. 408 A. Analyzing Just This Once Based on Current Law: The Computer Associates International v. Altai, Inc. Test ....................................... 409 1. Abstraction ...................................... 410 2. Filtration. .............................. 411 3. Comparison ...................................... 413 B. Current Law is Not Sufficient .................. 414 III. What is Artificial Intelligence? ...... .................... 416 A. Artificial Intelligence as a Person .................... 417 1. -
Proposing a Framework for Assigning Copyright to Creative Works Made by AI Jerome D
Solving a Copyright Quandary: Proposing a Framework for Assigning Copyright to Creative Works Made by AI Jerome D. Canlas* I. PREFATORY .............................................................................. 1045 II. THE RISE OF THE CREATIVE AI ................................................ 1052 III. EXISTING COPYRIGHT REGIMES REGARDING AI-CREATED WORK ....................................................................................... 1058 A. The United States of America B. The United Kingdom C. The European Union D. Other Developed Countries IV. INADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING REGIMES ................................ 1070 V. POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT OWNERS AND THEIR RIGHT TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP ................................................................... 1076 A. The AI Itself B. The AI Programmer/Developer C. The End-User of the AI D. Special Questions Arising From AI Generated Works VI. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK .......................................................... 1096 VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 1102 I. PREFATORY [Where] we can go [T]he sun is singing in the forest rain * ’09 J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law, ’19 LL.M., Kyushu University. He is a Senior Associate in Cruz Marcelo & Tenefrancia and is a member of the firm’s Telecommunications and ICT, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Taxation, and Labor Departments. His areas of practice include technology law, data privacy, tax and customs litigation, -
Ex MACHINA: COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for COMPUTER- GENERATED WORKS
Ex MACHINA: COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER- GENERATED WORKS Robert C. Denicola* Abstract A professor in France claims to have written a million books using his computer software platform. Many of the sports and financial news stories available on the Internet are written by computers. Computers also draw, paint, and compose music. Is their output copyrightable? Copyright law requires an identifiable human author because authors own copyrights and computers do not possess the personhood necessary to own property. The Copyright Office and some courts and commentators go further, requiring for copyright not only an identifiable human author, but also human authorship of the protected work. They demand, in other words, that the copyrightable expression in a work emanate from a human being. If a person uses a computer to assist in the manipulation of expression created by the user, the result is copyrightable. If a user's interaction with a computer prompts it to generate its own expression, the result is excluded from copyright. This is a tenuous and ultimately counter-productive distinction. It denies the incentive of copyright to an increasingly large group of works that are indistinguishable in substance and value from works created by human beings. The copyright statute does not define "author"and the constitutional interpretation of that concept is sufficiently broad to include a human being who instigates the creation of a work. A computer user who initiates the creation of computer-generated expression should be recognized as the author and copyright owner of the resulting work. A number of foreign countries have already taken this step.