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

Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 415 posts

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#111

Post by brookst »

markive wrote: post #34
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also look at all the post processing and AI that goes into smartphone cameras right now. The human element doesn't even choose which photo this is done algorithmically and the photo is stitched together in lots of different ways. The human just prompted: 'Now!'

…as long as you don’t count choice of subject matter, shooting angle, composition, crop, or moment to shoot to be creative choices.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#112

Post by brookst »

hammock wrote: post #68
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timing is only one aspect of creativity. In most settings a video camera’s output is copyrighted because of how you select the location and angel to film. Motion capture has all of those elements, and simply doesn’t capture 99.9% of the possible images. ie: Someone picked a log crossing the river as a place where something interesting will happen and they setup the shot to look interesting. Which is the general argum…

How is setting up a motion camera on a log not similar to setting up a prompt for ChatGPT?

The camera doesn’t decide what to put on the picture?

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#113

Post by techdragon »

yafbum wrote: post #50
famouswaffles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't overlook the fact that agencies like the USCO are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of determining stuff like this. They move first because they're on the front lines, as it were, but they can be overruled by the courts and the courts can be overruled by congress. 100% this will be litigated and likely altered in the coming months/years.

I'm still hoping it stays that way. That'd be a fantastic direction for works in the public domain.

Yeah but that assumes people are honest about the providence of their content and let you know up front that it was produced by an Ai and is thus not protected by copyright… and given the preponderance of copyright info in website footers, I expect this will be an error of omission rather than actively claiming incorrectly. By simply not giving individual articles a more specific copyright note mentioning the AI all you have to go on is a generic copyright statement in a footer and thus can only safely assume it’s protected.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#114

Post by sheepscreek »

It’s going to be insanely hard to copyright anything produced by AI. Especially now that generative models are widely available/in use. The possibility of multiple instances of the same output being produced (as a whole, or in parts) is high.

All you have to do is set the temperature low and the generative models will start producing repeatable results.

All of a sudden, copyrighting GitHub Copilot supported source code is not so straightforward anymore. How does one distinguish the human authorship in a function from that generated by AI?

Interesting times we live in. In a way, this may lead to less regulation/more openness. Equal opportunity for all. At least one can hope.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#115

Post by antibasilisk »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> 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…

I never thought what would end copyright would be artificial intelligence, but I'm glad at least something positive came out of it.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#116

Post by nickthegreek »

phire wrote: post #99
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timing is only one aspect of creativity. In most settings a video camera’s output is copyrighted because of how you select the location and angel to film. Motion capture has all of those elements, and simply doesn’t capture 99.9% of the possible images. ie: Someone picked a log crossing the river as a place where something interesting will happen and they setup the shot to look interesting. Which is the general argum…

There is so many places to inject creativity into the process. Before the capture you have: Chosing the location, posing the camera, adjusting objects in the background, setting up bate to attract wildlife, choosing optimal camera settings. Even selecting a camera could be considered a creative input. After the capture, the artist can choose which of the thousands of captures best fits their vision, crop it and apply…

You can do most of that with prompting and tools like control net in stable diffusion as well. And then take it into photoshop and do changes, feed it back into img2img and inpaint until your hearts content. One can spend multitudes more time than it too to tap the shutter button on an iPhone. In Midjourney of course, you have far less control.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#117

Post by jay_kyburz »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> 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…

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.

But what if the prompter then takes the AI text, changes some of the rhymes, perhaps adds a word here or there, does it suddenly come back under copyright.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#118

Post by rhino369 »

kube-system wrote: post #100
rhino369 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that question is very tough. It’s almost certainly copyright infringement. The method of copying doesn’t really matter.

Well, I more mean that the answer that many suspect is the case, is tough to swallow. In that case, the consequence would be: If you don’t validate that your AI model is producing something sufficiently different than all of the inputs, you’ve created a copyright infringement Russian roulette.

Yep. And DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply, so there won’t be much of a defense if it happens.

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#119

Post by layer8 »

basch wrote: post #109
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #3

> 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…

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. 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 disc…

The document addresses that:

> In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Re: Copyright Registration Guidance: Works containing material generated by AI

#120

Post by petesergeant »

kirubakaran wrote: post #15
kube-system wrote: post #8

This is all very sane and consistent with previous opinions on the matter. But it doesn’t answer any tough questions either, like: if an AI model outputs something very close to a training input, does the result infringe on the copyrights of the input work?

And how close is too close?

You can get ChatGPT to output copyright material very easily
Post reply on HN