000042012 000__ 01537cam\a22002535i\4500 000042012 001__ 42012 000042012 003__ SzGeWIPO 000042012 005__ 20240708145855.0 000042012 008__ 200624s2020\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d 000042012 022__ $$a0736-7694 000042012 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda 000042012 041__ $$aeng 000042012 1001_ $$aCalvin, Eliza 000042012 24503 $$aArtificial Intelligence as Artist :$$bWhy and How U.S. Copyright Law Should Extend to AI 000042012 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2020. 000042012 300__ $$a26 pages 000042012 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 000042012 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia 000042012 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier 000042012 520__ $$aThis Note proceeds in four parts. Part I examines the meaning of authorship within the context of copyright law; it explores the current definition of authorship, how that definition continues to evolve, and the distinction between the American understanding of the term “author” compared to the European perspective. Part II discusses the concept of creativity and considers whether non-humans are capable of being creative in the first place. Part III provides a brief historical introduction to the development of AI and demonstrates that such technology is capable of satisfying the requirements necessary for copyright protection. Finally, Part IV proposes a solution for how AI could be regulated if the Copyright Act was amended to include it. 000042012 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 38, no. 1 (2020) 000042012 650_0 $$aArtificial intelligence 000042012 650_0 $$aAlgorithm 000042012 650_0 $$aCopyright law 000042012 650_0 $$aCopyright Act 000042012 650_0 $$aAuthorship 000042012 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Calvin-NOTE.pdf$$yView this resource 000042012 904__ $$aJournal article 000042012 980__ $$aBIB