Comment by dcsan
17 hours ago
So if a machine was to do the translation, should that also be considered a creative work?
If not, that would put pressure on production companies to use machines so they don’t have to pay future royalties
17 hours ago
So if a machine was to do the translation, should that also be considered a creative work?
If not, that would put pressure on production companies to use machines so they don’t have to pay future royalties
Well that's the real question, isn't it?
Our current best technology, LLMs, are good enough for translating an email or meeting transcript and getting the general message across. Anything more creative, technical, or nuanced, and they fall apart.
Meaning for anything of value like books, plays, movies, poetry, humans will necessarily be part of the process: coaxing, prompting, correcting...
If we consider the machine a tool, it's easy, the work would fall under copyright.
If we consider the machine the creator, then things get tricky. Are only the parts reworked/corrected under copyright? Do we consider under copyright only if a certain portion of the work was machine generated? Is the prompt under copyright, but not its output?
Without even getting into the issue of training data under copyright...
There is some movement regarding copyright of AI art, legislation being drawn up and debated in some countries. It's likely translations would be impacted by those decisions.
> So if a machine was to do the translation, should that also be considered a creative work?
No, but it will be derived work covered by the same copyright as original.
The quality of human translation is better, for now.