Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera. Basically you instructed it to capture when it determined movement and the camera determined how those instructions are implemented in its output.
Has anyone tried to claim copyright over that before? I wouldn't be surprised if it was rejected.
Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
41–50 of 415 posts
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#42> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…
Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera. Basically you instructed it to capture when it determined movement and the camera determined how those instructions are implemented in its output.
You could argue the person who set up the camera chose the angle or frame, just like a normal camera operator.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#43This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. But it doesn’t answer any tough questions either, like: if an AI model outputs something very close to a training input, does the result infringe on the copyrights of the input work?
[deleted]
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#44"Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material." As an artist and a musician I use various degrees of randomness in my work - from feedback and "noise" in a composition to abstract splatters in my paintings. Plenty of art, writing, and music is the result of partia…
I tend to agree, and I find myself doubtful that this will remain the status quo for very long. As soon as these things reach the point where they could realistically be used for something like a Disney movie, all of a sudden there will be a lot of money behind finding ways to make the output copyrightable.
It seems to me that there's a spectrum here. If, for example, I create an animated music video for a song (that I own) by using Stable Diffusion to generate the imagery, generate all the prompts that are fed to the model, cut and edit that imagery together via my own creative vision... Where does the line between my authorship and the model's end? I'm not allowed to claim any ownership of that output?
Then again... If someone enters a similar prompt, and gets similar output, should I have some claim to that?
It's a pretty tricky philosophical issue, honestly. The more I think about it, I think I'm ok with this as the general framework, at least for now, as, if nothing else, it may prevent powerful interests like Disney from gobbling up ownership of the whole generative AI space in its infancy
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#45I’m curious. If I’ve spent 8 hours getting the perfect prompt, fine tuning a few LORAs, mixing them, choosing between 8 different checkpointed stable diffusion models, and have done a bunch of in painting, does this constitute a copyrightable work?
Certainly a lot of artistic vision and effort to get to the finished “work”.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#46> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…
Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress.
100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#47Reading this, it’s clear a tool like InvokeAI (built on Stable Diffusion but with potentially a lot of human input in a mouse-driven GUI) could certainly qualify for human authorship under their principles.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#48On a practical level, in order to protect authors and inventors (i.e. give them a reason to keep doing their work), this makes it even more vital to closely lock down AI interactions and preferably bring models offline in the sense of running locally on hardware without network component and where the bits are not sent anywhere except to the user. That way the output of the interaction can still be covered by trade secrecy if not published, since it will not be covered by copyright law if published or leaked by employees at the hosting company who have access to the output of the interaction.
To give a specific example, if as a paying user you craft a prompt to give you a competitive advantage, it will not be protected by copyright if leaked.
You can still run the code on your own server and others can still try to guess how you did it, but they should not have access to the interaction unless you explicitly publish it.
This will continue to encourage innovation. It is not necessarily the best trade-off but it is understandable.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#49If this is the logic, then corporations should lose personhood because they can't have it both ways.
I don't see the rationale because ultimately there are owners of copyright, whereas the creation process should be immaterial to protection whether it was paint thrown against a wall, AI generation, or some poor human painting with hummingbird eyelashes.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#50> If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's un…
Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress. 100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.
I'm still hoping it stays that way. That'd be a fantastic direction for works in the public domain.