According to the US Copyright Office, fully AI-generated works aren’t eligible for copyright because they don’t have human authors. They’re in the public domain by default.
It seems like it's an active area of legal thought (IANAL though).
Recent relevant discussion about this in the chardet repo between the chardet maintainer who relicensed the chardet code and Richard Fontana, a well regarded lawyer US IP lawyer who's worked for Red Hat (now IBM) for decades:
My take away from the conversation there is that being in an edit loop, where the files are AI generated through your control rather than directly editing the files yourself, means the files are then "AI authored" for copyright protection purposes rather than yourself.
But I double stress, I'm not a lawyer so may have misunderstood things radically.
I think that may not be answerable until a case concerning it has been heard and ruled on. A lawyer may have a better answer for you, but if I had to bet then I'd put $100 on it being something like 'it depends'.
It's interesting how AI can be its own worst enemy in this legal system. The very thing it's excellent at is not protected. In practice, there seems to be a strong opportunity to disintermediate brands by acting as a layer of abstraction above the seller and manufacturer. An AI instruction likely cares less about brand or sharing customer information with the seller; it's just more friction and tokens spent.
I think its just a case of dealing with something that has no precedent. We have never had to determine what the line is between a tool and an employee when they can both be instructed with natural language. If we were to evaluate AI as if it were in a contract with us for use of its time and efforts in exchange for something of consideration, it would be an easy ruling. If we were to evaluate AI as if it were a tool which operates as an extension of the operators skill without any independent additions then it would be an easy ruling. But since we now have a tool that can produce results that are independent of our ability to produce them with any former class of tools, then we have to create entirely new models for how to map these tools into the complexity of real life conflicts where people have different goals and where we must decouple fairness from intentions.
Amazon has owned goodreads since 2013.I have been using thr platform for many years, and the service has been good. Having said that, I haven't seen much innovation being built but that might be a good thing with this product.
Not to mention that there is incentive to keep having oncall pages, because that's how you get paid. Or not participate at all. On the other hand, with a flat payment, there is a big incentive to prevent issues and not have(reduce) ooh incidents, and participate in the rota.
They don't compete right now, but surely the architecture of the system will be quite similar, or solve very similar types of challenges. So it should become easier to jump domains when these solutions mature.
A legal wrapper will use domain specific legal expertise to structure and develop their product and functionality. It will likely have many functions that are specifically optimized for the legal use case.
If a wrapper can easily move across many domains, then the wrapper likely adds little value to the base model.
YES! It's so unbelievably annoying when websites just remove stuff from your playlists / bookmarks / whatever without telling you what was removed.
For anyone stuck in this situation and willing to spend a few (many) hours to recover the titles of their YouTube playlist:
On the playlist page, in the (...) menu there is a "Show unavailable videos" button.
After clicking that, you can right-click all the unavailable videos and copy their URLs. Then you can either try the wayback machine, or google the video ID. Usually you will find some forum posts talking about the video and mentioning the title.
Of course, it's not guaranteed that you'll find anything this way. But I have recovered multiple playlists this way.
reply