Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#131

Post by wredue »

judge2020 wrote: post #39
wredue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are actually the one doing something though. If a line appears on the page, it’s because that’s your intent. For an AI, when a line appears, that is always someone else’s intent. AI can only copy. I mean. Do we really need to go over all the reason why an art scanner that copies art and maybe paints it differently is fundamentally not the same as a human learning to create art?

If we could copyright every stroke in our paintings or every line in our artwork, nobody would be able to make anything new. Humans copy painting techniques, photography tricks, shot setups (angles, margins, etc) and make new pieces all the time that advance the world of art.

Ah. So when challenged with facts, we defer to the good reliable ol slippery slope and exaggeration.

>humans copy techniques

And as I already addressed, when humans are creating, there is real intent. When an ai does it, it’s a copy and paste with no intent.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#132

Post by sandworm101 »

bertil wrote: post #21
nobodyandproud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered. Copyrights attach at creation and does not require anything of the creator. What the judge is referencing is the fact that registered copyrighted works are given additional protections, notably the award of attorney fees in disputes. Aren’t there visual art in the public domain? INAL but the judge’s ruling seems technically correct, s…

> Aren’t there visual art in the public domain? Yes, photos taken by people working for the government for example, and anything shared with Wikipedia should have a license for free use (typically CC0) [0] That’s an important, valuable part of all images, but a very small segment overall. The vast majority of images (holiday photos, posts on social media, Deviant Art, etc.) are not in the public domain, even if they…

Publicly-licensed works are 100% copyrighted. That's why they need licenses. A true public work doesn't need or get any licensing. Linux is copyrighted, and licensed, to become f/oss. Shakespeare is actually public domain, no license required.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#133

Post by BestGuess »

wredue wrote: post #122
BestGuess wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but it is still fundamentally just copying, pasting, and then deforming lines together That's called "photobashing", very common to see used by concept artists. Also, it's fair use. So now you've got a bigger problem in that almost all concept artists are engaged in theft I suppose? Since they are "only" copying, pasting, and then deforming things together?

Funny how you declare photo bashing as “fair use” but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying and that it is also in a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment, with lawsuits pending. It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying

[[citation needed]]

>a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment

That's a funny way of admitting I'm right.

>It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand?

You mentally unwell or are you just an internet troll?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#134

Post by bertil »

wanderingstan wrote: post #59
bertil wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not missing anything: you are asking the key question in that process. We don’t have an answer. As a society, we agree that you, a human, copying art you’ve seen is original (or at least derivative enough that it warrants a new copyright). We agree that a photocopy machine, or rather a human operating one, is copying art in a way that is not creative enough to warrant a copyright — so the human goes to jail.…

Excellent point regarding the famous Monkey selfie, which I think points to the emerging issue of biological vs artificial agents. It presents a sort of mirrored view of the GenAI issue: The human photographer does not get credit because the monkey is deemed to be the "agent of intent" rather than him, presumably because it's a living thing. If a photograph was triggered instead by a human tossing a rock onto the shu…

The concept of "agent of intent" definitely empowers the person using a GenAI too

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#135

Post by bertil »

alistairSH wrote: post #56
bertil wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not missing anything: you are asking the key question in that process. We don’t have an answer. As a society, we agree that you, a human, copying art you’ve seen is original (or at least derivative enough that it warrants a new copyright). We agree that a photocopy machine, or rather a human operating one, is copying art in a way that is not creative enough to warrant a copyright — so the human goes to jail.…

If I build a Rube Goldberg painting machine and somebody else "pulls the trigger" to start the machine, who owns the output? Me or the other person? In the case of today's AI models, I could see arguing that the creator of the AI or the creator of the prompt have some rights to a specific output, but not the AI itself. The monkey case seems fairly cut-and-dry to me - the monkey didn't steal the camera (as often repor…

The best equivalent in this case would be the engineers working on Photoshop for Adobe: they write Rube-Goldbergian code to detect shapes, colors, and let artists click once to detour, cast shadows, adjust palette, etc.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#136

Post by judge2020 »

wredue wrote: post #131
judge2020 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we could copyright every stroke in our paintings or every line in our artwork, nobody would be able to make anything new. Humans copy painting techniques, photography tricks, shot setups (angles, margins, etc) and make new pieces all the time that advance the world of art.

Ah. So when challenged with facts, we defer to the good reliable ol slippery slope and exaggeration. >humans copy techniques And as I already addressed, when humans are creating, there is real intent. When an ai does it, it’s a copy and paste with no intent.

The intent is whatever the human puts into the prompt. If a human downloads an image, copies and pastes a solid black line thousands of times to make a mediocre drawing, is that not just copy and paste?

What is your actual intention here? Where does the "intent" in humans come from that AI doesn't, even when commanded by a human to perform something?

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#137

Post by judge2020 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #101
ghaff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name-calling doesn't help your argument. But I do suspect that there are two overlapping schools among the most vocal supporters of this technology. - Those who think that generative AI is so wonderful because they have a vested interest and/or have bought into the most breathless hype - Those who more or less think copyright shouldn't exist in any case

> Those who more or less think copyright shouldn't exist in any case I still believe a little bit in Jefferson's vision. It's just that that has so little to do with copyright that we're probably not even talking about the same thing. He envisioned copyright as being an incentive to create and do new things, to learn new things. And here, as it would be used, it would shut down new technologies and quash new ideas. C…

Copyright is a human right only in that it's the right to stop your stuff from being stolen. Which really isn't a right, but a set of rules that are needed for a developed nation to prosper by ensuring people make productive work in pursuit of selfish riches. Otherwise, you could make something, and someone could come along, take your idea/work, and undercut you slightly to put you out of business.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#138

Post by wredue »

BestGuess wrote: post #133
wredue wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how you declare photo bashing as “fair use” but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying and that it is also in a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment, with lawsuits pending. It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying [[citation needed]] >a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment That's a funny way of admitting I'm right. >It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles. Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand? You me…

Ad hominem usually demonstrates you know that you’re wrong.

I am not the one arguing that a computer has thoughts, feelings and intent as you are here. It is you that is deliberately attempting to misunderstand through ignorance, lies, and insult.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#139

Post by whywhywhywhy »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #58
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in both style and content, which are copywritten The "style" certainly isn't copywritten because you can't copyright a style. Someone creating doodles in her style is absolutely allowed.

SomeONE, not someTHING, and "creating" isn't the issue, "monetizing" is.

Doesn’t matter. She still can’t copyright a doodle style.

She doesn’t own black and white scribbles and striped clothes.

Especially when really she’s just deriving from Tim Burton and other similar styles.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#140

Post by wredue »

BestGuess wrote: post #133
wredue wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how you declare photo bashing as “fair use” but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying and that it is also in a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment, with lawsuits pending. It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying [[citation needed]] >a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment That's a funny way of admitting I'm right. >It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles. Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand? You me…

Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing:

https://www.owe.com/is-fan-art-legal-fair-use-what-about-mas...

Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense. Copyright owners can, in fact, today stop derivative works that they know about, including photobashing.

By your own admission, AI is barely doing photobashing, so is very obviously not creating original works and is subject to copyright claims.

It gets tiring listening to HN AI enthusiasts pretending that AI is an actual comparison to human intelligence when it’s actually demonstrably a specialized search engine that does little more than copy and paste. If this were not the case, then:

-An AI would be able to feed itself without becoming shit tier nonsense

-An ai would be able to create materials not discernible from its training material

Neither case is true for any AI, including diffusion models.

Post reply on HN