What’s of interest? Federal Court asked to declare only humans can be authors under copyright law | CP24.com
Tell me more!
The Federal Court of Canada is being asked to declare that only humans — and not artificial intelligence — can be considered authors under Canada’s copyright law.
It’s the first court case in the country testing how the Copyright Act treats artificially generated content, like the text, images and videos created by systems such as ChatGPT.
David Fewer, director and general counsel at the University of Ottawa’s Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, says one of the aims of the clinic’s application is to lay “down in bedrock” that only humans are authors under the law.
This is one among many items I will regularly tag in Pinboard as oegconnect, and automatically post tagged as #OEGConnect to Mastodon. Do you know of something else we should share like this? Just reply below and we will check it out.
Naturally there is desire for some kind of concrete “rules” on use/copyright of content via and made by generative AI. On reading this article I’m left with a feeling that people want to have this court decision so they can weild copyright as a tool to protect the content they created, e.g. to control/commercialize it’s use- what is the creator of “Suryast” aiming to do with an assertion of copyright? Why do they seek copyright?
All of this seems almost inside our what I like to think we want to do in openness, not to draw fences around, but too make available. I’d guess the answer is, to apply something like a Creative Commons license, which is a copyright statement, one has to establish authorship to be able to apply a license.
Hence the fuzziness we have with non-human created content, right?
This also makes me think of a recent workshop I was in where participants made use of genAI for imagery. There seemed to be some interest from participants in wanting to assert that the things they made with genAI be excluded from AI training-- which struct me as odd since they had learned in the workshop that most genAI is able to do what it does by the rampant use of source material from others.
Did I mis-understand what the intent was to “exclude” their works from AI training? And all of this seems almost moot as how does one ever know what is in and what is not in a training set? It seems opaque.
Ana María Sandoval Poveda reacted to your message: