Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by eismcc on Tuesday April 09, 2019 @11:28PM
(#19621570)
Reminds me of Bicentennial Man: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0182789/
Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by moocowtruck on Tuesday April 09, 2019 @11:33PM
(#19621593)
but the person who executed the GAN is a human, they are an artist who's tools are just different
Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by genai on Tuesday April 09, 2019 @11:16PM
(#19621488)
But the output result is the same (i.e. human can produce a drawing of a face, GAN can produce a new drawing of a face).
If another animal such as chimp draws a human face what do you think would be the outcome? Would a chimp drawing a face be any different to a human drawing a face?
Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 09, 2019 @11:22PM
(#19621514)
> But the output result is the same
Law is only extremely rarely concerned with only output results and not process, status of actors, etc.
> Would a chimp drawing a face be any different to a human drawing a face?
Yes, legally, the outcome wouldd be different (whether it was original, a direct copy, or something made by copying elements but with some new content) because chimps are neither legal actors that can create a copyright through authorship nor ones who can violate copyright.
Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by genai on Tuesday April 09, 2019 @11:29PM
(#19621576)
Interesting, also what do you mean by "status of actors"?
Re:Open Questions about Generative Adversarial Networks
by mikehollinger on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @08:20AM
(#19623872)
There’s a really interesting adjacent problem - the so-called “monkey selfie” which was recently settled by stating that works created by a non human we’re not copyrightable.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
A human artist is a legal person, a GAN is not. That's a fairly substantial legal difference.