Post by account_disabled on Dec 19, 2023 6:20:16 GMT
Not all copyrights are owned by individuals, after all. Companies are recognized as legal entities and are often assigned copyright for works they do not directly create. This happens, for example, when a movie studio hires a crew to make a movie or a website commissions a journalist to write an article. So it is possible that copyright can be granted to the person (company or human) who has effectively ordered the AI to produce work for it. The current legal picture is actually more complicated and changes depending on where you live, as this is not an area that has been addressed by international copyright treaties. In the UK and other countries such as Ireland and New Zealand, computer-generated works have copyright, which belongs to "the person by whom the steps necessary to create the work are taken".
Other European countries do not have similar provisions in country email list their legislation, but various jurisdictions, such as Spain and Germany, imply that only works created by a human can be subject to copyright protection. In addition, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has stated on various occasions that copyright applies only to the original work, and originality must reflect the intellectual creation of the author. This is usually understood to mean that an original work must reflect the personality of the author, which clearly means that a human author is necessary for a copyright work to exist. In other jurisdictions, the situation is even more complicated.
In Australia, some jurisprudence has held that a computer-generated work could not be copyrighted because it was not produced by a human. In the US, the situation is still open to argument, with different experts leaving room for interpretation as to whether computer-generated works would be protected or not. Things are likely to become even more complex as artists and machines succeed in replicating creativity, making it harder to discern whether an artwork is made by a human or a computer. The monumental advances in computing and the excessive amount of computational power that is becoming available could make the difference. At that point, we will have to decide what kind of protection, if any, to give to works created by intelligent algorithms with little or no human intervention.
Other European countries do not have similar provisions in country email list their legislation, but various jurisdictions, such as Spain and Germany, imply that only works created by a human can be subject to copyright protection. In addition, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has stated on various occasions that copyright applies only to the original work, and originality must reflect the intellectual creation of the author. This is usually understood to mean that an original work must reflect the personality of the author, which clearly means that a human author is necessary for a copyright work to exist. In other jurisdictions, the situation is even more complicated.
In Australia, some jurisprudence has held that a computer-generated work could not be copyrighted because it was not produced by a human. In the US, the situation is still open to argument, with different experts leaving room for interpretation as to whether computer-generated works would be protected or not. Things are likely to become even more complex as artists and machines succeed in replicating creativity, making it harder to discern whether an artwork is made by a human or a computer. The monumental advances in computing and the excessive amount of computational power that is becoming available could make the difference. At that point, we will have to decide what kind of protection, if any, to give to works created by intelligent algorithms with little or no human intervention.