Post #3420493
2026-06-26 14:43 UTC
The ordinary property approach leads to a sort of analysis where judges try to isolate the spark of creativity in an earlier work and determine whether a later work used that spark, and if so, whether it added sufficiently novel changes to that spark. It's comparative art criticism, but by judges.
Brought to AI, it turns into downright metaphysics: is the spark of human creativity encoded in model parameters? And now everybody is confused.
3/7
Replies (1)
-
@b@xoxo.zone 2026-06-26 14:44
When somebody tells you that a work is transformative and therefore fair use, they're equating comparative criticism with the whole of copyright law. Fediverse, the thing I most want you to get out of this paper is that the ordinary property approach to copyright is why copyright is problematic. We don't have to go full libertarian here and declare that anybody can take anybody's work, but there's a vision of copyright without everybody on the defensive about when imitation is too much. 4/7