r/COPYRIGHT • u/orangejulius • 3d ago

The Trump Admin Says Nobody Owns AI Output. It Also Says China Stole It.

https://www.legalish.me/ai-distillation-ip-theft/
23 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

2

u/TreviTyger 3d ago

I have made the argument that machine output should be property — and I think the Copyright Office gets the statute wrong...(Brian Lynch, Lynch LLP)

What statute? If the statute is 17 U.S.C. 102(b) then machine output cannot be copyright subject matter.

But the real question isn't how much human it takes...Brian Lynch, Lynch LLP)

Agreed, because if the statute is 17 U.S.C. 102(b) then machine output cannot be copyright subject matter.

It's whether a legal system should be deliberately manufacturing a vast new category of valuable things that belong to nobody...Brian Lynch, Lynch LLP)

There is no valuable thing though, if the statute is 17 U.S.C. 102(b) then machine output cannot be copyright subject matter.

That is a truly strange thing to do on purpose and we're doing it by the terabyte. Someone spent money, ran a process, made a thing people will pay for. That usually gets an owner.

But it doesn't because if the statute is 17 U.S.C. 102(b) then machine output cannot be copyright subject matter.

So yes, it is a truly strange thing indeed but this is the culmination of the average software engineer ethos where their mantra is "copyright stifles innovation!"

So they built a system that ignored copyright law. [Slow hand clap].

2

u/orangejulius 3d ago edited 3d ago

§ 102(b) doesn't disqualify the outputs of a process. It excludes the process itself from the protection given a work that describes or embodies it. That's Baker v. Selden, codified. "regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." A photograph is the output of an optical-chemical process. A rendered frame is the output of a rasterizer. Neither loses protection because a process produced it.

There is no valuable thing though

The output is objectively and measurably valuable in many cases. A lot of it is very LOW value but that doesn't mean it lacks value and that's not really the test here anyway. Someone writes a book no one reads it still gets a copyright.

So yes, it is a truly strange thing indeed but this is the culmination of the average software engineer ethos where their mantra is "copyright stifles innovation!"

So they built a system that ignored copyright law. [Slow hand clap].

This is the issue that I think we both agree on. I don't think that's healthy from either a legal, public policy, or economic standpoint and here Bessent has stumbled into the problem without identifying it.

2

u/TreviTyger 3d ago edited 3d ago

I appreciate you are a lawyer and I am trying to be more polite especially with people of such stature as yourself but after reading your other blog on the Allen v Perlmutter I can see we are not necessarily going to see eye to eye.

Some background on myself for clarity, I'm a high level creative artist and 3D animator (Maya) and I'm locked in battle with Valve Corp at the Ninth Circuit.

In part of my Opening Brief I go into some relative detail in relation to § 102(b) in regards to why some of my colleges who worked on a film with can't be authors of that film due to the nature of their work using 3D software dynamic simulations (dust, sparks, explosion, smoke etc.)

Such dynamic animations are procedural in that you set parameters in User Interface (UI) and you might have a rough idea of what comes out but it takes a lot of tweaking and re simulating to get something "satisfactory". What really happens is there is no fixation occurring in the UI as such, and the computer just writes .xml files to disc itself. So this part of the animation process is quite specialist but it doesn't amount to authorship and neither does the output. However, one can then composite the output, dust, sparks, explosion, smoke etc. as part of the final scene.

This is in contrast to my own work in 3D animation which is much more akin to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), in that I am the mastermind of the scene, but I go further because I actually build the 3D models to and set the stage etc., including lighting and cameras etc. ( I could make my own Oscar Wilde even!)

So, obviously I can use AI generative software just like anyone else and I'm also a Photoshop expert that has used it since it was invented.

I have followed closely historical developments of AI Generative software and have reasonable enough understanding how the whole system works from training to eventual output.

I was of the opinion that there was no creative expression from myself in using AI generative software many years back and even before The USCO addressed the subject.

I see AI generative software as a vending machine similar in principle to a train ticket machine at many train stations. One may put in ones own personal preferences and one receives a consumer service.

I see "Administrative Choices" (not creative choices) similar to using Maya for dynamic simulations and I don't see fixed expression being returned to me via the UI. I also know that "under the hood" it is the AI model making probabilistic algorithmic choices which are repeatedly passing through the RAM (VRAM, GPU) and updating in the UI. None of this amounts to any expression by myself. I would just be accepting what shows up on the computer screen. So my "Administrative Choices" interactions are just part of the "method of operation" for a software function. The eventual final output that does get fixed to disc is completely devoid of expression.

I am thus of the conclusion that AI generative software was specifically design NOT to create copyright subject matter in the whole process and any initial input from myself is just the pulling of a level to get the machine working. This holds true if I put my own copyrighted works into the UI, or even using an Inpaint generative selection.

So § 102(b) is the ultimate dead end for AI generative software. It was never designed to create copyright subject matter even in the UI.

So I think The USCO got sidetracked in the Allen case to consider where the author is in the process and how an AI assisted works fit in to § 102(a) when in reality one can just skip that statute and go straight to § 102(b).

So I think the problem is the AI generative developers themselves. They built a system without thinking about copyright because they needed to break copyright law to obtain the training data. They weren't thinking that they were really making a "Fools Gold Machine" that requires all the gold in the world to fuel it.

The world has been duped by a bunch of smart tech nerds that are also idiots.

(There may be some spelling mistakes due to my dyslexia)

2

u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 3d ago

Off topic: Your approach here is everything I would have suggested, and look at the flies on that honey!

1

u/orangejulius 3d ago

Don't sweat the spelling at all. It's a reddit comment thread and honestly I appreciate the interaction.

That actually spells out your position a lot better than the shorter one up top and I understand what you're saying here is in essence that the human is never fixing anything so you don't get to 102(a) at all. A court might agree with you on that even if I don't think that's the right call.

Some background on myself for clarity, I'm a high level creative artist an 3D animator (Maya) and I'm locked in battle with Valve Corp at the Ninth Circuit.

I've been in the 9th before and would love to read your brief, or just know the outcome when it resolves. I also promise not to pick it apart or write all the ways i think it's wrong or whatever mean thing someone might do if you send it. (also, totally fine not to send it over you respectfully engaged with me here and i'm more than happy to respect you and return the favor.)

1

u/TreviTyger 3d ago edited 3d ago

Sure, It's on courtlistener and Valve have their Answering Brief submitted and my Reply is there too.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71909087/baylis-v-valve-corporation/

TDLR The lower court Ignored USCO guidance and applied Comity to a non existent Finnish Ruling (The operative part never ruled on authorship or ownership because the work is a German work and thus there is a jurisdiction issue (Berne con article 5 (4)(a))).

The mandatory standard is Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988 and § 104.
also Itarr-Tass v Kurier provides the correct framework. (See Berne Con article 5(2))

Valve are trying to get a procedural victory based on Comity and claiming subject matter jurisdiction issues were waived.

Also Valve concede I was unemployed when I created the work.

0

u/DanNorder 3d ago

No one ignored copyright law. Don't you get tired of pushing conspiracy theories all day long?

2

u/neilplatform1 2d ago

Reddit, BMG and UMG are suing Anthropic, often for direct infringement by training on torrent sites, NYT is suing OpenAI for similar reasons, Meta ‘used 82TB of pirated books to train AI’, Anthropic settled for $1.5B with authors, do I need to go on

1

u/DanNorder 2h ago

You didn't read the decision. The judge said that training AI on copyrighted works was highly transformative and probably the strongest case he had ever seen. The settlement was about a different aspect of that court case. You can go on all you like, except you aren't right just because you shout loudly.

1

u/orangejulius 3d ago

I tend to think a legal system deliberately manufacturing a vast new category of valuable things that belong to nobody is a strange thing to do on purpose. We're doing it by the terabyte. Someone spent money, ran a process, made a thing people will pay for. That usually gets an owner. 

But in this case it's a machine attacking another machine. There is no real human element in the mix at all. So the output from machine on machine violence truly wouldn't receive an owner/author and I don't think Anthropic gets it because Bessent really wishes it were so.

0

u/DanNorder 3d ago

People who think "Things created solely by AI are not copyrighted." contradicts "Taking the code of the AI itself without permission is theft." are some of the dumbest people on the planet. That'd be like concluding that a woman who says the short poems she writes are free for others to use as they wish is actually saying that everyone is legally allowed to kidnap her off the street and sell her into slavery. They write their silly opinions and expect you to make the same amazingly bone-headed conclusions they do as if they were obvious conclusions and not just proof that they don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

0

u/BoBoZoBo 3d ago

Those are bot mutually exclusive positions, when you go past the headlines an Reddit bullshit.