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

171–180 of 562 posts

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

#171

Post by rlpb »

visarga wrote: post #129
cvoss wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practical implication is you can't copyright something that your AI generated. As the article notes, copyright applications are also being rejected in cases where a human asserts authorship over an AI generated work.

> you can't copyright something that your AI generated Seems like a loophole, if I generate synthetic data with a model trained on copyrighted works, the synthetic data is copyright free? So I can later train models on it?

You can't "launder" copyright away like that. The court will see straight through it. See "What color are your bits?" at https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

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

#173

Post by falcor84 »

immibis wrote: post #136
falcor84 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying to assign copyright to an AI is techno-futurist bullshit by trying to give legal presence to a piece of software. I don't quite get this argument. Companies already have legal personhood and can own copyrights, can't they? So if a company's AI creates a copyrightable artifact, who wouldn't it be intellectual property of the company?

Companies own copyrights of works created by their employees, not works created by their works - if such works are somehow persons...

But typical contracts have the employee immediately assign copyright to the company, such that they never hold it. So I just don't see where the line is.

In the extreme case, what if I am CEO of a company that has no other employees, and it's just me, pressing Enter once a day on a script named keep_creating_stuff.py, with the script generating shitloads of IP that is presumably mine for a microsecond before being automatically assigned to the company. What's the legal interpretation of that?

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #169
kube-system wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court didn't rule that AI generated art isn't eligible for copyright at all. They ruled that only humans may be assigned a copyright. If you are a human that uses AI as a tool to create something, the door is still open for you to claim copyright as a human. The court is ruling that computers themselves don't have the human right to copyright. Not exactly surprising.

> The court is ruling that computers don't have human rights. No, it is just ruling that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. Whether computers have human rights is not an issue before the court.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
quadragenarian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait just so i understand it, if a single human creates an AI model and trains it, and then prompts it to create an image, is that considered "human intervention" and does that make that human the author of that image? What if its a group of 5 humans that built the LLM and one of them prompts it? Isn't all AI built by some of group of humans? When is AI treated like its own entity like a monkey versus a tool made by…

> Wait just so i understand it, if a single human creates an AI model and trains it, and then prompts it to create an image, is that considered "human intervention" and does that make that human the author of that image? No, you misunderstand. The human involved is explicitly claiming the work was entirely AI authored , and that it should be given a copyright registration with the AI as the author. The human is not c…

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by autoexec »

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.

We pretend businesses are people all the time.

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

#177

Post by dragonwriter »

autoexec wrote: post #176
fnikacevic wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyrights are owned by businesses all the time.

We pretend businesses are people all the time.

Corporations are legal persons, that's the entire point of the form.

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

#178

Post by dpig_ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #169
kube-system wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court didn't rule that AI generated art isn't eligible for copyright at all. They ruled that only humans may be assigned a copyright. If you are a human that uses AI as a tool to create something, the door is still open for you to claim copyright as a human. The court is ruling that computers themselves don't have the human right to copyright. Not exactly surprising.

> The court is ruling that computers don't have human rights. No, it is just ruling that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. Whether computers have human rights is not an issue before the court.

Well you misquoted the person you responded to by cutting their sentence short. They specifically said that computers don't have the human right to copyright. As in - the right that a human has under copyright law.

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

#179

Post by golemotron »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #68
golemotron wrote: post #62

This is clearly a case where we need new legislation. The US Copyright Act needed to be amended to cover photography. Prior to that photos were not copyrightable. It seems like we are on the same trajectory now. The real problem is that Congress is institutionally incapable of making simple amendments to law. Everything gets delegated to agency rule making regardless of whether anyone likes the outcome.

And then the supreme court tosses out the agency rulemaking. And then the president makes his own executive order. Then the courts block that. It's kind of a mess right now. Congress is pretty broken.

No truer words have been said.
Post reply on HN