Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Except a baby probably shouldn't really hold copyright.

Realistically they are not a human just legally they are.

It's hard to say when human life begins but we seem to settle on treating it as after they are born.

But this is nonsense in any scientific sense.



Babies are absolutely human, but they may not be persons depending on the definition of personhood. There is no definition of personhood.


One hour before birth is it human?

If so how far back do you go before it's not human, is a fertilized embryo human?

If not, whats the difference post birth?

We know many animals are more intelligent than babies. My point is, it's a pointless comparison. Babies don't represent anything human.

And as per the monkey (in this case) can't create. It's the situation they are put in that can create the art. They are just the tool.


As a matter of fact, the fact we consider babies human is a progressive evolution in human history. In ancient Greece for example, children were considered property of their father till the age of puberty, who could dispose of them (including of their life) the way he wishes. A father could kill his son without consequences




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: