And how will they know?
Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
331–340 of 415 posts
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#332In the studio, the photographer directs the lighting, the model, tweaks the shot, issues commands to modify the scene, presses a button, checks the outputs, iterates, chooses the best shot. In a virtual conversation, the promptographer directs the computer to set the tone, chooses their model, tweaks the inputs, issues commands to change the virtual parameters, presses a few buttons, checks the outputs, iterates, and…
Creating AI artwork is simply telling the computer the result you want, and picking what you believe to be the best output. There may be something of an iterative process there, but it's really not creative.
Also the photographer is not "guided by a tool". The camera doesn't guide them.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I wave my camera around taking lots of pictures, and then find one that I really really like I can copyright it. If I generate a bunch of AI images and find one that I really really like, I think I should be able to copyright that too. In both, the creative spark comes from discerning what has value.
Careful with your wording: you don't generate AI images, the AI generates images. You use the AI to generate images. An argument could be made that the AI acts like the camera and the selection process is the creative act. The text hints at this when it mentions curation. But curation also provides a far more limited protection than authorship (e.g. consider the copyright of phonebooks).
Generally agree. But if it’s the AI generating the images then it’s also the camera generating the images.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You instructed the camera, placed it and set the angles. If a monkey steals your camera and takes a selfy you can’t copyright that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
> You instructed the camera, placed it and set the angles. And I instructed the model, and set its tuning parameters.
Someone else could just use the same prompt and get the same results, would you sue them for copyright infringement then? Do you think that makes sense?
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#335In the studio, the photographer directs the lighting, the model, tweaks the shot, issues commands to modify the scene, presses a button, checks the outputs, iterates, chooses the best shot. In a virtual conversation, the promptographer directs the computer to set the tone, chooses their model, tweaks the inputs, issues commands to change the virtual parameters, presses a few buttons, checks the outputs, iterates, and…
Creating AI artwork is simply telling the computer the result you want, and picking what you believe to be the best output. There may be something of an iterative process there, but it's really not creative. Also the photographer is not "guided by a tool". The camera doesn't guide them.
Can you elaborate on what makes something creative or not?
On the 2nd point, the camera guides photographer. Watch anyone take a selfie, they use the camera to decide what to do with the camera. It is iterative.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#336Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#337Pointless screaming at the tide hoping it won’t come in.
In 3 years there won’t be a major digital tool that isn’t pipelining through ai especially in CG and music, in 10 years the pre-AI versions of those tools won’t run on a modern computer.
Unless you’re ready to say “anything made with Adobe CC can’t be copyrighted “ then this is pointless to debate.
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
point and shoot is almost certainly copyrighted. eyes closed might not be, (I kind of doubt there's case law here). the bar for originally is pretty low for copyright but it's not zero.
What if someone who's blind just randomly pulls out a camera and takes some snaps (without knowing anything about what might be going on). Do they get a copyright on their photos?
probably not
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> - 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.
And as you submit this to the court, the other party requests discovery of evidence from your computer, your communications and (based on that) the API logs of a particular third party provider you could have used, and uses that to not only dismiss your court claim but forward it to the local prosecutor - previously it was just a civil case, but perjury is quite punishable, in USA up to five years in jail (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621).
Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI
#340Not possible to reliably tell apart. The Image generation scene is one thing. For a lot of output, there are still some tells. Text generation though...well good luck ever finding that out.
Who has the burden of proof? Can I just claim everything and anything as “made by AI” and start (ab)using it and then it is up to the original author to proof that it wasn’t actually made by an AI?
You do, in a civil claim its up to you to prove that your rights were actually violated.