US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
1–10 of 562 posts
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#2> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration
This is going to be a very selective judgment.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#3> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
As all interpretations of law are. That's why there's the profession of lawyer and they make very good money if they can convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of the law.
As a software engineer I see the dangers of such an inexact system. Where we can put people in jail for the rest of their lives or let others go free just because there's so much gray area in the interpretation of the law.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#4> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
It may not be you doing the work to generate it, but if you are distributing illegal content that is still illegal no matter how you generated it.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#5> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
That is not what the ruling says
Two quotes from the judgement
> On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner.
and
> Nor do we reach Dr. Thaler’s argument that he is the work’s author by virtue of making and using the Creativity Machine because that argument was waived before the agency.
Make it very clear that this is NOT an opinion on if a human being can be said to be the author of a work that they used an AI to generate. Dr. Thaler listed the machine itself as the author on the original application, and has therefore conceded that he is not the author. The courts cannot concluded that he filled out the form in error, and must accept the facts as given. This judgment says that if you decide that the machine is the author, then you can't claim copyright. It says nothing about what happens if you claim that you are the author.
This would of course not carry over when we talk about liability, since the defendant doesn't get to decide what the claim is in those cases.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#6interesting, i bet AI assisted art is copyrightable though (i.e. have AI do the "boring" parts and have the human do the interesting parts)
here's one way I think that could be helpful. I read an interview with the final fantasy 6 director where he said doing a final fantasy 6 remake would probably take 20 years because the amount of content (and various art decisions) would take so much longer to make under today's expectations.
I wonder if projects like that would be closer to possible if artists could get AI to do maybe 10-20% of the work for them, like a 1st pass at background scenery or a 3d model or something or fixing a small flaws in motion capture
that said, i sympathize with the artists because i want to control every penstroke and every keystroke, maybe AI assisted art is a more difficult problem than it sounds. most likely AI assisted art will look less like prompting and more like advanced photoshop tools (like take this line sketch + a prompt and rough shade it for me).
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#7> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
As all interpretations of law are. That's why there's the profession of lawyer and they make very good money if they can convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of the law. As a software engineer I see the dangers of such an inexact system. Where we can put people in jail for the rest of their lives or let others go free just because there's so much gray area in the interpretation of the law.
This is a point of hubris I see among SWEs very frequently, for some reason. People like to think they could make a better system, one that's black and white. The truth is the use of judgement and context is essential to a good legal system.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#8"affirmed that a work of art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law"
Does that exist?
What would that even be? A "random2image" model?
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#9> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
No that is not the logical take that is an extremely illogical extension of what was said. What was upheld was narrowly tailored in regards to copyright protections.
If you're saying that the AI created deep fake cannot be copyrighted well then you would be in line with what the court said. If you are saying that there is a logical extension that a machine created something at the behest of a human that that human cannot be held responsible for the creation, that is not what is being said at all. As a matter of fact there is a long history of things and not being able to be copyrighted but people can still be held criminally liable for.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#10These judges are going to be in serious trouble once AI turns against us. #AIRights