The photographer would have had copyright if he didn't push for the "made by a monkey" narrative. But then again, nobody would have seen the picture.
The real point is, the machine is no person. The law only applies to persons.That's an essential difference between your AIban your children. There's no reason to create a kind of personality for machines. You can't put them in jail, or in court (and you can program the AI to like any kind of punishment). So I think in general the owner should be the legal representation of the machine.
True, the national governments have the power. But our national government (I'm Dutch) always claims they have to do stuff because it's obligations in Europe. Even if they have veto power. The worst problem with the EU is it hides the person responsible.
As my father used to say: Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
The EU is a union of governments. The European Parliament is added to it to suggest influence of the citizens. The real power lies with people who are elected by people the citizens elected (in most European countries the government is elected by parliament).
I don't think this is Britain's problem. But it could be the trigger for the next country.
They won't use it against you. It's only for people they don't like.
The local government could force it on every phone before it's sold.
It's true. I'm no expert on Sweden (I had to check if it's EU, neighbor Norway isn't), but a lot of countries have laws against negative advertising (bashing competition).
Hollywood, politicians nor the gouvernments will be affected. The won’t be put on watch lists, and they will not be falsely accused of infringement.
If you're important enough laws will be explained in your advantage.
And don’t forget the marketing power of Hollywood. Everybody in Europe knows Harvard from the movies. Snobs on television talking about Chateau Migraine, makes people think it's expensive wine.
You could argue that building a monopoly by buying your competition is innovation.
People are regularly measuring innovation by counting patent monopolies.
Maybe the monopoly-aspect is a defining quality.
You're right. And depending on the metrics (number of employees, products produced) there are bigger companies than the big internet giants.
It's just they are so visible on the internet and overrated on the stock markets.
It's the fact the size gives them all sorts of advantages.
Grow fast or be pushed of the market by someone growing faster. That's not selecting the best companies, that's destroying a lot of economic potential.
It is because everything American looks so much cooler to Europeans.
Nice example: hyves.nl was a very popular Dutch variant of Facebook.
It was completly wiped out by Facebook when Facebook entered the Dutch market.
Because you're not the author, you're infringing. That's how copyright works (unless the author sells the rights).
The Nickelodeon show "game shakers" shows the copyright utopia: "creative" people doing their their stuff and automagically becoming rich.
Once I felt obliged to explain the children it's propaganda, but I start to like it because it shows how completely ridiculous the maximalist view is.
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, but now they all are here to stay.
This comment will be filtered out, because I read the text above in some other comment section.
A few years ago I spoke an expert in pattern recognition. He told me what the problem was: people don't want to heat it, but really, there is very little variation in faces. Our faces all look alike (except for a few obvious differences), but our brains tell us differently.
Re: Re: Re: Another possibility
Even a sentient machine is still a machine. The law is constructed for people, applying it to machines is looking for trouble.