It means as long as you can find a few employees who testify that they made "creative input" during the process and nobody can disprove that, you're fine.

It's like things that are already in public domain. Even if you make a coloring book out of paintings in public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean others can just print your book as-is.

▲

unknownfuture 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> It means as long as you can find a few employees who testify that they made "creative input" during the process and nobody can disprove that, you're fine.

Have you been involved in copyright or patent litigation?

Because it's not that easy.

	▲	raincole 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's usually easier than that, as one by default hold the copyright of their works. Typically a company doesn't need to provide the whole working process and files to the court to claim copyright over their published products / to accuse pirates for violation. If you're on the defendant side of a copyright violation case, it's extremely hard to use "well the original author didn't really make it...* as a defense. (Patent cases are often defended with this argument though, as a patent grants far boarder protection than copyright and can be rejected on prior art. But still it's very different from "AI made this actually.")

▲

asdfsa32 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can blame the governments for all sort of inefficiencies but any operation that impacts taxes runs a tight ship in most developed nations, this include things like copyright law, census, and anything statistics.

If companies get slope with creative output to the point that "a few employees" can reproduce it in shadow markets, don't expect to get copyright protection without giving governments revenue and speech-control.

▲

pizzly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps but what about individual works done not via a company. Say you are a author and someone falsely detects a AI watermark in your book. Is the testimony you provide enough to override that falsely detected AI watermark? My feeling is that there will be an industry that arises that proves you contributed to the works you want copyrighted.

▲

raincole 2 hours ago | parent [-]

(I think) the case depends on what AI watermarks are. As far as I know, things like SynthID has practically zero false positives.

	▲	pizzly 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My understanding is that you get back a percentage from SynthID regarding how confident it thinks the text is generated by AI or not. The question is what percentage would be considered undeniable that it is AI generated or require more than just your testimony to prove that you actually did the work yourself. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08025-4 (Google Deepmind) was using a "Watermark detectability is measured using the true-positive rate (TPR) when the false-positive rate (FPR) is set to 1%" for instance in their research paper. This 1% was set arbitrary just for the research paper but what percentage should it be set to?

▲

Obscurity4340 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Like being an executive producer