101–110 of 415 posts
This could indeed increase skepticism, particularly when it comes to img2img and, if not as much, txt2img usage.
> 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…
> 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.
Your question therefore cannot be answered a priori. The copyrightability has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
> 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…
"Expressive elements" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Is there a a point at which a prompt becomes sufficiently complex or detailed that it would quality?
Only specific things are copyrightable. There is nothing unusual (from a legal sense) in the government and others taking a stance on which things those should be and under what circumstances. You have no a priori right to copyright something because you fucked around with a prompt for a long time.
I don't see how they could go with a different stance given that all that is required to copyright a written work is to write it and declare it copyright (IFF it is copyrightable, that is). This will fall apart it if it's possible for a company to have AI spew out eleventy-billion variation of training input and declare them all copyright.
Don't forget that in the early 90's we went through an era of records being yanked off the shelf at great cost to labels when the sampling laws finally settled. (Anyone else remember the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of Us3's "Hand on the Torch"? fond memories!)
This announcement has immediate, significant practical impact for creatives. The most important document a creative had, up until today, was their portfolio -- typically, a look-book of finished pieces. Now, that portfolio needs to include, for every piece, proof-of-work -- snapshots of the whatever-it-is in various states along the road to completion, in sufficient quantity to dissuade any legal claim that the work…
> 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…
Careful! I’ve always felt that, as written, copyright should not apply to most software. Since only creative expressions may be copyrighted and functional expressions are not copyrightable, it’s very hard to match up the copyrightable portions of software with those that are not. Requiring a declaration of what parts are and are not copyrightable for software would be a major shift in policy and require major changes…
Any line of code, probably not. But a program as a whole, sure.
Otherwise I think you blow up music copyrights too, since a single note isn’t copyrightable and a song is just a bunch of individual notes.
At some point, choosing, ordering, and organizing a collection of non-copyrightable quanta produces a copyrightable work. And I think it had to be that way.
> 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…
What if I generate it 50 times and cobble together a final product from the variants, choosing which line and word and rhyme I like from each sample? Where is the line between LLM and thesaurus/dictionary?
The comic book the office rejected seems to me to have crossed a line of significant human editorial discrediting after the generative fact, and they didn’t care.
> For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style. > But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. But I can certainly specify those things i…
> And anyway how would you know whether or not and how much I was assisted by the AI. Because in a lawsuit you would have to reveal that info. You can't just sue someone and not answer questions pertinent to your claim.
- Your honor my wholly original work of Halvin and Cobbs, a cartoon of a little boy and his pet tiger is entirely original to me.
- Did you use an AI to produce it?
- See, the problem with fine art is that it's supposed to express original truths.
But who likes originality and truth?! Nobody! Lifes hard enough without it! Only an idiot would pay for it!
Popular art knows the customer is always right! People want more of what they already know they like, so popular art gives it to 'em!
- Sir, did you use an AI to plagiarize your way to an unofficial sequel of a beloved comic strip? Answer the question!
- Yesn't.