Mesterséges intelligencia a tartalomgyártásban
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46522/S.2024.02.10Keywords:
media, artificial intelligence, freedom of speech, originality, intellectual creation, AIAbstract
Artificial Intelligence in Content Creation
It’s been almost a decade since I’ve been teaching a course in media law and ethics for 3rd-year media undergrad classes at the University of Arts in Tg. Mures, and one of the first questions I regularly ask my class – to their surprise – is about the meaning of life. What we are trying to learn from the ensuing discussion is that there are no correct answers. Except for fanatics, at least in the society we grew up in and are currently living, it is more or less up to the individuals to sort out this question for themselves. As we are living in communities, though, achieving individual goals always needs to take into account the aspirations of others. We have to arrive to some social compromise regarding the acceptable meanings of life, so as every individual might have a shot to happiness, as healthy communities are usually made up of content individuals. For achieving such compromises, modern societies need the individual right to think, speak and act freely (without undue governmental constraint) and a communication tool, through which the many individuals might exchange their views (classic media).
During the past century however, human civilization evolved at an increased speed. Societies, communication, and technology have all changed to the point that we are at risk of irreversibly altering Earth’s climate and consequently extinct human life.
The most exciting evolution in technology, as of today, is unquestionably the birth of artificial intelligence. This presentation investigates, from a legal perspective, how this new technology changes communication, what challenges it brings to notions as originality or intellectual creation, and concludes, on a moderately optimistic note, that beyond inherent anxiety and uncertainty, it might become a catalyst for creation and communication.
References
ABRAMS, H. B., 1992. Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 55 No. 2.
DIPPOLD, Á., 2023. Mi különbözteti meg a világ leghíresebb képhamisítóit a Midjourneytől? [online] Qubit, Letöltés időpontja: [16.02.2023] Elérhető: https://qubit.hu/2023/02/16/mi-kulonbozteti-meg-a-vilag-leghiresebb-kephamisitoit-a-midjourney-tol
LENDVAI, Zs., 2008. Szerzői jogok az ókorban, Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, Vol. 113 No. 3, 2008. június.
LESSING, A., 1965. What is Wrong With Forgery? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 23 No. 4, Summer 1965, 461–471.
MITCHELL, W. J. T., 2005. There Are no Visual Media, Journal of Visual Culture, Vol 4 No. 2, 257–266.
ROMIȚAN, R. C., 2007. Condiţii cerute pentru protecţia operelor în cadrul dreptului de autor, Rev. Științe Juridice, No. 84.
Jogesetek:
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,22 188 US 239 (1903)
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony, Ill US 53, 58 (1884)
Football Association Premier League és társai C-403/08 és C-429/08, EU:C:2011:631
Football Dataco Ltd és társai kontra Yahoo! UK Ltd és társai C-604/10, EU:C:2012:115
Goldstein v California, 412 US 546, 561 (1973)
Levola Hengelo BV kontra Smilde Foods BV C-310/17, EU:C:2018:899
Painer kontra Standard Verglags GmbH C-145/10, EU:C:2011:798
United States v. Steffens, United States v. Witteman, United States v. Johnson, 100 US 82 (1879).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a CC BY Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits any use, reproduction, distribution, self-archiving and citation of the work as long as the authors are credited. The complete bibliographical data of Symbolon Journal must also be indicated, which you can find in the How to cite section on this page. If possible, please also place a link leading to the original publication. Copyright of articles belongs to the authors.