@DebeMusic@MusicMarketingA ...which undermines the very existence of copyright in itself. Given that one of the main reasonings behind IP protection was to incentivze and encourage creativity.
@DebeMusic@MusicMarketingA Yes, that’s the issue at the moment. Who will be entitled to the copyright?
If we were to look at section 9(3) then we might assume that the person who made the necessary arrangements would be entitled to claim copyright of AI created works. OR alternatively, no one at all...
@DebeMusic@MusicMarketingA Which would presumably be the persons who designed and programmed the AI machine.
This in itself brings about many issues. Mainly, is it fair for a human creator to reap the rewards of copyright when an AI machine might be creating hundreds of artistic works per day.
@DebeMusic@MusicMarketingA I believe as it stands, AI created works would fall under ‘computer generated works’ meaning the copyright would be awarded to the human creator.
Section 9(3) of the CDPA states that the author is the person whom made the arrangements necessary.
@MusicMarketingA This one is interesting. The human is still the person that has ‘made the arrangements necessary’ and would be awarded ownership.
What I find even more interesting is what will happen when machines can create independently, free from any human involvement...
@MusicMarketingA This form of creating must be modelled from a pre-existing human creation. The question then arises, who is entitled to the copyright? The original human creator, the AI machine or the person who made the arrangements necessary? (i.e the creator of the AI machine)
@MusicMarketingA The main question is the copyright issues that arise from AI created works.
It may be possible that Artificial Intelligence will be able to make music but is the created work free from any human involvement? The AI machines must be programmed to create in a certain way...