<story><title>Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks</title><url>http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11787262/blade-runner-neural-network-encoding</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>svantana</author><text>This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question:&lt;p&gt;How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art?&lt;p&gt;For example, Spotify is flooded with &amp;quot;covers&amp;quot; of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter how similar it sounds, as long as it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;remade&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s considered a new work of art. So what happens when the cover song process can be automated? It seems likely that courts and lawmakers will need to define a sphere of similarity around each work of art, within which all points are considered copies.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>buro9</author><text>Music has that sorted already.&lt;p&gt;There is copyright.&lt;p&gt;There is publishing right.&lt;p&gt;If you make a cover of a recording, it is the latter that you are involved with. You&amp;#x27;d have to go to the publishers of a piece of music to license the right to publish your interpretation of the work.&lt;p&gt;Obviously this post simplifies, but it&amp;#x27;s already answered.</text></comment>
<story><title>Blade Runner re-encoded using neural networks</title><url>http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11787262/blade-runner-neural-network-encoding</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>svantana</author><text>This article alludes to, but never actually brings up, something much more interesting than the project in question:&lt;p&gt;How can copyright coexist with human-level automatic analysis and synthesis of works of art?&lt;p&gt;For example, Spotify is flooded with &amp;quot;covers&amp;quot; of hit songs that are made to sound as similar to the original as possible. In my understanding, it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter how similar it sounds, as long as it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;remade&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s considered a new work of art. So what happens when the cover song process can be automated? It seems likely that courts and lawmakers will need to define a sphere of similarity around each work of art, within which all points are considered copies.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>robert_tweed</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure the law as it stands is robust enough to deal with these issues on the basis of similarity vs substantive difference. A cover usually sounds quite different to an original, enough so that a fan would certainly not consider them the same thing.&lt;p&gt;OTOH, simply using some well recognised phrases (not necessarily a sample) can infringe on the mechanical rights, which are the copyright on the composition as distinct from the performance.&lt;p&gt;Also consider fake paintings and photos. Recent cases have shown that even dong things like re-staging an iconic photograph or transferring the image to another medium can constitute copyright infringement. As ever, it comes down to the duck test, generally in the opinion of a judge.&lt;p&gt;An automated re-encoding of a movie would almost certainly be at least a derivative work (if say, you applied a deep-dream filter to each frame) or at worst a straightforward lossy copy like any other encoding.&lt;p&gt;In order to be considered a new work, there would need to be some substantial reinterpretation of the original. It shouldn&amp;#x27;t matter whether that reinterpretation is done dy a human or AI, but current AI just isn&amp;#x27;t capable of doing that yet.&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: IANAL, so treat my understanding of copyright law with the usual level of scepticism applied to Internet comments.</text></comment>