Not sure I get this argument. Keep my AI generating text until I find one I like?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7486179
Adoption as Authorship
The U.S. Copyright Office treats expression generated by AI as categorically unprotectable, even when a human directs the process and incorporates the output into a work. This Article argues that the Office's position rests on a mistaken model of authorship, in which the author must personally generate each element of fixed expression or at least transcribe a precise mental conception formed in advance. Neither model describes how authors actually work. Creation proceeds by trial and error. Authors generate expressive variations, often through processes they do not control, and settle on results that fulfill an intent that may itself change along the way. Photographers shooting in burst mode, Ellsworth Kelly’s randomly dropped paper fragments, and Judge Frank’s “clap of thunder” in Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda all show that copyright already recognizes authorship of expression the author did not deliberately generate. The Article contends that the irreducible act of authorship is adoption, meaning the choice to treat a set of sensory signals as the embodiment of one's expressive intent. The joint authorship cases support this account. They locate authorship in decision-making authority over what the work will contain, not in the generation of content. The adoption theory does not license appropriating preexisting material, because originality doctrine separately bars claims to the commons or to others' expression. On this reading, originality works like the Lockean limits on appropriation. AI output is abundant and takes nothing from the commons, so there is no principled reason to deny protection to a human author who adopts it as her own expression.
Collective liability?
Autonomous Vehicles
As the autonomous vehicle industry shifts toward collaborative innovation models – through patent pools, FRAND licensing, and shared software stacks – existing legal frameworks struggle to keep pace. While intellectual property (IP) law encourages proprietary innovation, these new modes of cooperation demand a rethinking of how both innovation and liability are shared. This chapter critically evaluates how collaborative IP organisation in the autonomous vehicle industry are reshaping traditional boundaries of legal responsibility, particularly in the context of tort law. It argues that the current model of isolated liability is incompatible with a horizontally integrated autonomous vehicle sector where numerous actors contribute to safety-critical infrastructure. The chapter proposes a framework – a Collaborative Risk Doctrine – that links IP sharing with proportional liability allocation. This includes safe harbour provisions for open-standard compliance, and model licensing agreements that incorporate tort risk-sharing procedures. Regulation can align innovation incentives with accountability in a complex, multi-stakeholder environment.
We’re not at war. We’re not at war. We’re not at war.
UK police arrest several under explosives act in 'major incident' near US air base
British police announced on Sunday morning that several people were arrested "on suspicion of offenses under the explosives act" close to a major air base hosting U.S. forces in the southwest of England.
"A number of properties are currently being evacuated in the Whelford area following the declaration of a major incident," Gloucestershire Police said in a statement. "It follows the arrest of several men on suspicion of offenses under the explosives act."
The village of Whelford is located around 2 miles from RAF Fairford, which hosts the U.S. Air Force and has since February been serving as a key hub for American operations against Iran -- including for heavy bombers like the B-1 Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress.
Would Congress view such laws as limiting their own future earnings?
Only Congress Can Intervene on Trump’s Truth Social Profiteering
What the president and his associates are doing is probably illegal. Whether any legal action could successfully be brought is another matter.
Yet again, an appalling example of profiteering off the nation’s highest office by Donald Trump and his family illustrates that the legal system is not equipped to address abuses of executive power. In our system, either Congress acts or there is no remedy any time soon, perhaps ever.
Apparently Trump does not know that the name has already been taken.
https://www.axios.com/2026/09/25/trump-ai-super-intelligence-tech-definition
Inside Trump's "super intelligence" naming problem
President Trump is pushing world leaders and U.S. agencies to rename AI "super intelligence."
Why it matters: "Superintelligence" already has a distinct meaning in AI — and is fueling debates over whether the most advanced systems should be slowed or stopped.
The big picture: Superintelligence — broadly, AI that surpasses human cognition — has become both an industry ambition and the focus of efforts to slow its development or ban it altogether.
Yes, but: Trump doesn't seem to be talking about that kind of superintelligent AI.
"The use of the word 'artificial' ... makes it sound fake," he said before the UN General Assembly gathering on Tuesday, adding, "it is not fake. It's actually amazing."
He announced that all "United States documents, and hopefully the world's, will be changed to use the much more accurate term 'super' as opposed to artificial."
No comments:
Post a Comment