There is no official definition of the term "Big Data". Some scholars have argued that. See Ralston, supra note 4, at 291 ("At various points between these two extremes, contributions to the character of the musical composition may be dominated by either the programmer (in setting the rules and parameters), the user (in setting of parameters). or inputting source material), or HAL (in the generation of random numbers)."); see also Evan H.
The Early Figure of the Author
This section of the article uses a historicist lens to unravel the network that binds copyright and authors. This evolution would be felt not only in literature but also in philosophical texts shortly after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 - the date used as the milestone for the end of the Middle Ages. Until the sixteenth century, in many European countries there was no fully developed onomastic system, an absence that limited the ability to name the author - which appears to be a prerequisite for the attribution of the work.96 Shakespeare, for example, "never bothered to spell his name, either in his personal practice or in the.
explains how John Milton and many of his contemporaries, including Henry Robinson, William Walwyn, Roger Williams, John Lilburne, John Saltmarsh, and John Goodwin, expounded the importance of liberty after the introduction of the printing press, quoting Robinson as "[writ] , with reference to the printing press, that 'no man can have a natural monopoly of it'' (quoting NANCY C. CORNWELL, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES UNDER THE LAW second alteration in original))).
The Statute of Anne and Early American Law
From the early sixteenth century until the Statute of Anne, English law protected publishers, not authors. John Miltonis and John Locke were instrumental in the struggle to end the Stationers' "licensing" regime, which they (rightly) regarded as a form of pre-publication censorship.,14 This struggle, which would sow the seeds of human authorship in the law of copyright in the coming centuries began as a movement for a protection of authors rooted in natural rights derived from the protection of the author's work.'15. Gordon, Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 YALE L.J.
34;individuals"?12° There was a timely convergence of interests: On the one hand, the writers basked in the sun of the Enlightenment, bathed in the rays of individualism.121 On the other hand, the Stations understood that they needed a justification. theories other than greed, the needs of "industry," or indeed their mere desire to survive to convince both Parliament and the public At a political juncture early in the eighteenth century, copyright chose to recognize authors, not publishers.
Author's Rights as Human Rights
Whether seen as a natural right—or even at its human peak as a human right, as the next section shows—or as an economic incentive, the focus of copyright has been the production of the human mind. If copyright had been designed as an investment protection scheme, or merely a scheme for conveying "things of value", then the publishers' investment would have been sufficient, human creativity a mere supplement, and the basis of protection would have been time and money spent.12s This would have paved a way to argue for the protection of machine productions, based on the time and money spent on the machines and their code. 105:2053 There was no doubt at the time that European authors had natural rights to works produced by them, a view that gained "universal" status when it was enshrined as a human right.127 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") .") protects the moral and material interests of authors resulting from scientific, literary, or artistic production.12 This protection of interests resulting from scientific, literary, or artistic production objectively includes, at least indirectly, Lockean- approach.29 To quote Professor Julie Cohen, copyright's "mission to foster cultural play" can be read against the background of the UDHR.so While copyright protection of the production of machines can be the subject of an honest debate, no one can seriously argue that machines should have human rights.31.
HANSEN, 10 INTELLECTUAL LAW AND POLICtY401 (2oo8) ("Article 27(2) of the Universal Declaration establishes the status of the substantive and moral rights of the author as human rights."). That was the premise of the text of the 1886 Convention, namely to ensure that authors who were nationals of countries that would accede to the new treaty would be protected in all countries party to the treaty.
Evolution of Authors' Rights in the
Malla Pollack, Purveyance and Power, or Over-Priced Free Lunch: The Intellectual Property Clause as An Ally of the Takings Clause in the Public's Control of Government, 30 SW. The postmodern burial of the author does not justify the conclusion that machine productions are somehow just as worthy of copyright protection as productions by human authors. In other words, expanding the nature and scope of human interactions does not naturally lead to the conclusion that therefore.
However, in all cases the source of the written expression was found to be a human. 53 (1884), the Supreme Court held that the person using a camera (to take a picture of Oscar Wilde) was making the creative choices necessary to be the author of the photograph and therefore it was not a machine-produced work.
DOCTRINAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROTECTION
Creative Choices .......................................................... 20 89
In concluding that it was, the Court noted the photographer's creative choices, including pose, costume, lighting, accessories and the set itself.,13. the simple 'seep' of copyright, but also, and more importantly, that the presence of creative choices in the production of the work is the only sufficient test to determine whether the work is worthy of copyright protection.") define originality" and this omission was obviously deliberate. For an interesting discussion of the relationship between the author and her work and how the work is expressed, see Leslie A. 34; Under this system, each fastener is assigned a unique nine-digit number, each digit describing a specific physical parameter of the fastener." Id.
In light of the above, this article concludes that, doctrinally, machines cannot make creative choices as defined in Feist. The purpose of the doctrine is to give a person (often a legal entity) rights in a human-made work.
DERIVA TI VE WORKS ........................................................... 2o96
What remains is the possibility that in the distant future some kind of incentive may be needed to get an Al machine with more capabilities, to spend more time creating instead of doing other tasks.-9 This is certainly interesting research: would financial incentives like are those traditionally associated with copyright succeed in changing machine behavior?22o. To say that creativity is derived in a broader cultural sense - as, for example, with memes - is not the same as saying that all productions resulting from derivative creativity are derivative works.224 The concept of derivative works is contained in the statute and must use caution.225 Many derivative works involve a copy of the base work, and most cases that find that the right to prepare the derivative work has been infringed also find a parallel infringement of the right to reproduce the base work. After a detailed analysis of the right to make derivative works contained in the statute, 27 I found that what makes a work derivative for copyright purposes is that the creative re-user "makes creative decisions that render the primary work original." 22 For example, a translation of a novel may not contain a single word of the original language expression, but it reflects and reuses most of the choices made by the author of the original work (structure, flow, use of metaphors, style, etc.). 229 Combination, on the contrary, reproduces elements from pre-existing works and is derivative in that it reuses the creative choices of the author of the works it copies.23o A screen adaptation of a novel may reuse expression (dialogues), but mostly transfers and reuses creative choices from the novel, without taking the term lightly.31 In the context of deep learning, the computer does not appear in this sense; instead, he finds correlations and patterns that he uses as a matrix for his own production.232 These productions are therefore not derivative works.
Gulick, Creative Control, Attribution, and the Need for Disclosure: A Study of Incentives in the Motion Picture Industry, 27 CONN. Clifford, Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will the True Creator Please Stand Up?, 71 TUL.
H UMANS AS CAUSE
It is also conceivable that the choices would be caused by the programmers but by the human users of the machine. The test suggested in this article allows for a separation of the protected creative expression of humans from the unprotected expression contained in the productions of machines. 1999 (Law for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property) (Lib.) ("The protection of this law applies to every production of the human spirit.
Instead, this article suggests looking at the cause of the elections to see if they are creative under Feist. It is not the time factor, in other words, but the autonomy of the controlling car.
CREA TI CHOICES AS WA TERMARKS OF ORIGINALITY
LEGISLATION V. COMMON LAw
Computer-Created Productions
The scenario most likely, under this article, to land on a court's docket is one in which copyright protection of music, news publications, or other texts or images produced by an Al machine is asserted by a plaintiff.2 63 These productions "look like" copyrighted subject matter in that they will appear to be original and the product of creative choices.264. Because many current production Al machines are relatively low in degree of creativity, a plaintiff would likely begin by arguing that the creativity threshold is 1ow.265 This is correct, but the suggestion of this article is to avoid modification of the threshold unraveling the exact nature of Creativity. If the cause is the machine, then the choices, while they may seem creative (and may indeed be "creative" in the vernacular), do not qualify for copyright protection.
In applying the test (cause of originality) proposed in this article and implementing it by identifying creative choices, the task of a court would be to determine whether the choices that caused the apparent originality were embedded in (human written) code in a way in which the output was "caused" by the program, such as in cases where copyright protection was applied to the output of audiovisual games. 66 Choices that are too far removed from the code or the user's instructions, that is, choices made autonomously by the machine, do not count towards copyright protection.
A l Photography
In a famous British case, the last known photograph taken by a security camera of Diana, Princess of Wales, before her fatal car crash in Paris, was refused copyright protection based on a fairly novel defense of public interest.269 The case had to decided. on other, fairly obvious grounds, namely that no creative choices were made, as Judge Kaplan did (using both British and American law) in a case involving photographs of old masters' paintings.27o The camera had no autonomy and the angle and location were probably chosen for functional (security related) considerations. S]napshots—conventional representations of conventional subjects, made using digital cameras with 'fully automatic' settings—can on this basis be considered parts of the public domain.”) See Haritha Dasari, Note, Assessing Copyright Protection and Infringement Issues Involved in 3 d Printing and Scanning, 41 AIPLA QJ Some software programs are almost completely automated and do not require the user to participate in the actual scanning process once the target object is placed in position.
Others allow designers to use digital cameras to capture a series of images that software then reconstructs into a 3D model. The less human input there is to the design, the less likely the object will meet the required level of originality to be copyrighted.").
AI-Aided ('Joint") W orks
