Thanks to all of you who stuck with me during last week’s wonky romp through the U.S. Copyright Office. Here’s what you had to say:
Kathleen C. wrote: “Thank you for explaining what the jobs are of the people who were fired by the current administration. It is alarming to learn that we just heard the echo of a hammer whacking a nail in the coffin of democracy and free speech.”
Peter S. wrote: “The nuances of copyright law have all sorts of implications for writers and AI is making it even more complicated. For example, U.S. copyright law is very clear that AI-generated content can not be copyrighted. However, if someone (an editor, for example) takes a collection of AI-generated text and arranges it into a book, the individual paragraphs in the book are not copyrighted, but the book as a whole (because it was curated and structured in a particular way) could probably be copyrighted. All these questions and more still need to be asked and answered.”
Phil S. wrote: “In regards copyright matters, methinks the future of literature is tilting very much towards the public domain. Authors can be directly compensated by readers, if their writing resonates. No need for publishers. No need for book agents. Good for literacy. Good for democracy.”
See you next week!
P.S., if a friend sent you this newsletter and you want to sign up, the place to do it is npr.org/newsletter/books. :)
|