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

US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 562 posts

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#181

Post by dragonwriter »

fnikacevic wrote: post #164
autoexec wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? that depends on the terms of the deal. Some artists want to keep the copyright but will sell the work, while others are happy to sign their rights away for money. > If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications? Copyrights are for humans, so if you pay an AI, because the AI isn't a human, it never had a copyright to sell you.…

Copyrights are owned by businesses all the time.

Copyrights are owned by corporations as a result of either:

(1) actual human authorship and original ownership, sold to a corporation, or

(2) actual human authorship as a work for hire on behalf of the corporation, which is a special case specifically laid out in copyright law which allows someone other than the person performing the actual act of authorship to be the original copyright owner.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#182

Post by [deleted] »

wildzzz wrote: post #21

This is pretty much the exact same case as the monkey that took a photo. The photo is now in the public domain as the monkey cannot be an author of the photo and since the photographer didn't take the photo, neither is he the author. The US Copyright Office clarified that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines…

[deleted]

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#183

Post by bee_rider »

ssalka wrote: post #49

I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering: > As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. Dr. Thaler’s copyright registration application listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author, even though the Creativity Machine is not a human being. As a result, the Copyright Office appropriately denied Dr. Thaler’s appli…

The headline on Reuters seems to be more accurate (maybe it was changed after the article was posted here?). Unfortunately I can only got a glimpse of it before their overly-aggressive ad-blocker-blocker asserts itself (I’m fine with Reuters not wanting to serve me, since I block their ads, but their anti-adblocker system totally hijacks mobile safari).

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#184

Post by _AzMoo »

tantalor wrote: post #92
mikehearn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still can't believe the guy went to Indonesia, went into the monkeys' habitat, gained their trust, set up the camera on a tripod in a way the monkeys would have access to it, adjusted the focus/exposure to capture a facial close-up -- basically engineered the entire situation specifically for that outcome, and simply because he didn't physically hit the shutter he lost credit for the photo. Meanwhile I can open my…

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

And yet my company owns the copyright on all of the content I produce?

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#185

Post by dylan604 »

saelthavron wrote: post #130
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

> The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no person to assign the copyright, so there is no copyright. It doesn't default to me just because I asked for it. Why should an "AI" be considered a who rather than just another tool? To me, current "AI" are image manipulation…

People do not say that Adobe owns copyright when someone uses their tool to create an image. However, I could see some weasel words being added to EULAs especially regarding all of the new "AI" tools being shoe horned into the apps. They've already added weasel words to their cloud storage for training purposes. After all, a lawyer is going to lawyer.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#186

Post by pests »

acchow wrote: post #168
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

> Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. If I set up an entire scene with props and artwork for a photoshoot with a model, but I would like to actually be the model so I ask a friend to go behind the tripod and tap the shutter, the friend holds the copyright?

It depends.

Did they have any creative input before hitting the shutter? Did they tell you to move? Or adjust lighting? Did they choose the angle or framing?

These answers influence the answer to your question.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#187

Post by dragonwriter »

_AzMoo wrote: post #184
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

And yet my company owns the copyright on all of the content I produce?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43405240

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#188

Post by Joel_Mckay »

squidsoup wrote: post #144

I understand the intent of this ruling, but it seems that real artists like Refik Adanol who trains his own models and produces work that I would consider to be uniquely his, are getting the short end of the stick here.

Yes, he can file a complaint next to Carolee Schneemann masterpiece Interior Scroll.

This style of "art" is performative rather than expressive. Personally, I wouldn't commission either of them to clean my floor. =3

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#189

Post by dylan604 »

acchow wrote: post #168
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

> Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. If I set up an entire scene with props and artwork for a photoshoot with a model, but I would like to actually be the model so I ask a friend to go behind the tripod and tap the shutter, the friend holds the copyright?

well, you use a remote shutter release or a timer, and remove all ambiguity by removing the friend.

there's a scene in one of those Matthew McConaughey romcoms where he plays a photog. The crew has a scene completely setup up and ready to go so that he just walks in, hits the shutter release one time, and then walks away with little care as job is done. He's now credited for that photo, yet did the least effort possible. (that scene isn't too far off while only slightly hyperbolic)

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#190

Post by dylan604 »

bagels wrote: post #115
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?

It can never be the AI. The AI is NOT a person. Why are we belaboring this?
Post reply on HN