Music
Koko: A Talking GorillaThis is not legal advice. Leave audio feedback at (512) 686-6329. This show was recorded and edited using GNU/Linux.Expected Audience: anyone curious about animals, AI, extraterrestrials and copyrightThis week, Doug speaks to Neal Smith, author of "Monkey Art and Copyright: Intellectual Property Rights in Works by Nonhuman Creators." mp3 audio | ogg audio | torrent | videoPer usual, the sparse show notes are after the break.Why don’t you tell us a bit about yourself?Neal Smithlaw librarian at Western New England University (School of Law)He was the notes editor for IDEA this year.I want to leave plenty of time for questions, so I don’t want to get into too much detail about the paper at this time, but why don’t you give us a brief synopsis of the paper?Title of PaperMonkey Art and Copyright: Intellectual Property Rights in Works by Nonhuman Creatorscreative works by non-human creatorsthere was a story that went viral in 2011other forms of protection can workCould you speak a little about animal welfare vs. animal rights and does it matter for things like right of publicity?animal welfare is about protecting animalsanimal rights takes it a step furtherAnimal welfare says we should protect Koko the GorillaAnimal rights might appoint a guardianYou don’t talk at all about trade secrets? Why not?Process or methodtrade secrets might be the way to go with AIWhy are nonhuman creations not the subject of trademark or patents? It seems like AI or intelligent extraterrestrials could fulfill the requirements for either.strong AI presents the same problems as intelligent extraterrestrialsIs the argument on the patent front, that an animal could invent something, but it could not fulfill the disclosure requirements?Just not useful creationsYou say “These cases together indicate [copyrightable] if the author makes any sort of decision about the outcome of the final product that involves more than the mechanical implementation of a standard method or template. Works by animals can meet this threshold, while current machine-generated works and works of nature cannot.” You answer this generally in the paper, but more specifically, what would it take for a machine-generated work to meet this threshold?The issue is to meet the originality requirement. “modicrum of creativity” See Feist.more than randomness and more than wrote mechanical methodmachine creation might include randomness, which means that it isn’t copyrightableDoesn’t the Shakespeare analogy break down because a gorilla eats a lot (and thus costs a lot) and Shakespeare is long dead? A dead gorilla cannot create.Gorilla to paint needs food to keep it alive and materials to let paint.The real incentive is for the humans.novelty is an issue of source and copyright is not about protecting sourcetrademark is about protecting sourceHow does any of this relate to the Public Domain and/or Creative Commons?Creative Commons: doesn’t directly apply to CC, because CC depends on copyrightPublic Domain: Right on point! Right now these works are in the public domain by defaultMike Masnick got a takedown notice for posting images of the work in question.What are you planning next in your research and writing endeavors?Going in two different directions1. Orphan/hostage works (is it really a problem?)2. Copyright preemption and licensing agreements this is particularly important for libraries a California case involving UCLA in 2012 language limiting fair use might be preemptedGet in TouchMusic Manumit Last.fm groupMy Last.fm username: DouglasAWh.Libre.fm username: douglasawh. 280.status.net: douglasawhI'm on too many social networks to list them all!DonateFlattr Help Doug get through law school! Buy him a book or food!