51–60 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article talks about what is copyrightable. Your question is about infringement of already copyrighted material.
Yes, I understand it was out of the scope of this article. I’m just saying, these are the easier questions to answer.
Not that I thought AI would be writing decent code for a while yet, but the fact that AI-generated code can't be copyrighted (and therefore licensed[0]) is going to create problems.
It'll be interesting where they draw the line with this, though:
If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable?
If a human reverse-engineers uncoyrightable AI code, does that reverse-engineered code become copyrightable?
If a human downloads someone else's uncopyrightable AI-generated code, and makes some changes to it, can they then claim copyright on that code?
[0] Since the whole of software licensing rests on copyright, this is going to get tricky for licenses. How do we determine if a restrictive license has been added to uncopyrightable (and therefore unlicensable) code?
> While some prompts may be sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright, that does not mean that material generated from a copyrightable prompt is itself copyrightable.
I wonder if this is meant to imply that no possible prompt can produce copyrightable output. What if the prompt already contains expressive elements that the model faithfully reproduces in its output? (For instance, in the limiting case, "Exactly repeat this poem that I wrote: ...") Or perhaps this is meant only in the strict sense, that a creative prompt does not necessarily produce copyrightable output, if the expressive elements in the output originate from the model instead of the prompt.
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.
Timing is only one aspect of creativity. In most settings a video camera’s output is copyrighted because of how you select the location and angel to film. Motion capture has all of those elements, and simply doesn’t capture 99.9% of the possible images. ie: Someone picked a log crossing the river as a place where something interesting will happen and they setup the shot to look interesting. Which is the general argum…
> 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.
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.
Also look at all the post processing and AI that goes into smartphone cameras right now. The human element doesn't even choose which photo this is done algorithmically and the photo is stitched together in lots of different ways. The human just prompted: 'Now!'
I’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”.