'The Death of the AI Author' by Carys J. Craig and Ian R. Kerr
comments
Much of the second-generation literature on AI and authorship asks whether an increasing sophistication and independence of generative code should cause us to rethink embedded assumptions about the meaning of authorship, arguing that recognizing the authored nature of AI-generated works may require a less profound doctrinal leap than has historically been suggested. In this essay, we argue that the threshold for authorship does not depend on the evolution or state of the art in AI or robotics. Instead, we contend that the very notion of AI-authorship rests on a category mistake: it is not an error about the current or potential capacities, capabilities, intelligence or sophistication of machines; rather it is an error about the ontology of authorship.
Building on the established critique of the romantic author figure, we argue that the death of the romantic author also and equally entails the death of the AI author. We provide a theoretical account of authorship that demonstrates why claims of AI authorship do not make sense in terms of 'the realities of the world in which the problem exists.' (Samuelson, 1985) Those realities, we argue, must push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations of originality, assessed in terms of what an author must do. Instead, what they demand is an ontological consideration of what an author must be. The ontological question, we suggest, requires an account of authorship that is relational; it necessitates a vision of authorship as a dialogic and communicative act that is inherently social, with the cultivation of selfhood and social relations as the entire point of the practice. Of course, this ontological inquiry into the plausibility of AI-authorship transcends copyright law and its particular doctrinal conundrums, going to the normative core of how law should — and should not — think about robots and AI, and their role in human relations.
In a different turn 'Are Literary Agents (Really) Fiduciaries?' by Jacqueline Lipton in (2019) 86
Tennessee Law Review comments
2018 was a big year for “bad agents” in the publishing world. In July, children’s literature agent Danielle Smith was exposed for lying to her clients about submissions and publication offers. In December, major literary agency Donadio & Olson, which represented a number of bestselling authors, including Chuck Palahnuik (Fight Club), filed for bankruptcy in the wake of an accounting scandal involving their bookkeeper, Darin Webb. Webb had embezzled over $3 million of client funds. Around the same time, Australian literary agent Selwa Anthony lost a battle in the New South Wales Supreme Court involving royalties she owed to her ex-client, international best-selling author, Kate Morton (The Lake House, The Shifting Fog).
These are not the only literary agent scandals that have rocked the publishing world in recent years. However, litigation involving these agents is the exception rather than the rule, possibly because of a lack of knowledge by many authors, even famous authors, of their legal rights, or because the money made (or lost) by a number of authors isn’t worth the costs of litigation. The lack of legal precedent on the literary agent/author relationship can also lead to confusion about what the legal rights between the two parties entail.
This article analyzes the existing case law in the area, with a particular emphasis on teasing out the nature of fiduciary, contractual, and tortious duties owed by agents to authors. Recent cases suggest that, although literary agents are unquestionably fiduciaries, this characterization is of little practical importance, and that most of the obligations owed by agents to authors can more easily be explained and addressed as a matter of contract and tort law. To the extent that fiduciary duties have any significant work to do here, it seems to be in the “effective communication” area rather than in the more fundamental aspects of the relationship, like making deals and promoting the financial and reputational interests of the author.
