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

Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

mathstodon.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 225 posts

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#191

Post by kazinator »

somerandom2407 wrote: post #170
kazinator wrote: post #122

Suppose that an artist trains an AI model purely on their own works, and then the AI generates something similar to that artist's work. I would say that the artist must be allowed to assert copyright over that. The artist has copyright over all the training data, and the output of the AI is a derived work of that.

What do you think should happen if an artist views a lot of arts over their lifetime and then themself generates something similar to another artist's work? I would argue that collectively humans have been standing on the backs of other humans all throughout history. An artist today does not simply come out of the womb knowing how to make great art - they learn it by observing other art, learning about art and practi…

Such situations have led to disputes which ended up in court.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#193

Post by dools »

solid_fuel wrote: post #102
dools wrote: post #70

Create an “assign copyright” skill? I mean the copyright has to belong to somebody right?

> I mean the copyright has to belong to somebody right? Why would it? It’s generated by blending together ~ every bit of content on the internet and in books that they could steal. Why would the operator of the blending machine suddenly get copyright? Does a gambler own the copyright on the symbols generated by a slot machine?

There is the potential for a solid piece of artwork here, ie. at what point does a string of words become an artistic product.

Imagine a slot machine in a gallery that produces a 4 word sentence. Visitors press the button, and the artist copies the 4 words onto a piece of paper and puts it on the wall.

EDIT: my point being that causing a machine to generate words doesn’t give you copyright over the words but if you then do something with the words they become your work.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#194

Post by rho138 »

leobg wrote: post #173
t-writescode wrote: post #6

This matches historical precedent in other nations where copyright was not extended to a photographer when a primate took a photo of themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

All this talk of animal rights, and then this! /s

[flagged]

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#196

Post by M95D »

tossaway0 wrote: post #140
trickypr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it was a human who took the photo, would the copyright still be owned by the equipment owner / person who set it up? What if this applied in a photography class? The instructor owns the equipment and helped “set up” the photo. Does the instructor own the copyright?

After this ruling, I had an idea for a photo where I set up the entire set, camera, etc, but the photo entailed the model clicking the shutter while we were both in the shot. Just in case, I had the model write a quick note ceding the rights. It's fine, I guess. How does it work in cinema? A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator.

> A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator.

No, because they're already paid to do that job. And a director is paid too - he doesn't have any copyright for his work. The employer does.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#197

Post by dijksterhuis »

dgellow wrote: post #176
dijksterhuis wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a bit further down ... > Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. which reads like you actually have to contribute by modifying the output from the system, i.e. prompts/inputs to the system do not count as a human contribution.

If you modify the output, you don’t magically get copyright on the whole output, only the section you modified

if you modify enough of the output as to make it unrecognizable as the machine output -- that's a new work created by a human. i.e. you don't have to change every line.

same thing applies to sampling in music. if i change enough of a sample as to make it unrecognizable, then i don't need to worry about registering/licensing the sample.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#198

Post by harimau777 »

somerandom2407 wrote: post #167
harimau777 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.

Is it fair to say, then, that artists who have trained on the work of prior artists should also not be able to protect their works unless they have directly received consent and have compensated all the artists whose works they have viewed and potentially learned from over their lifetime?

There's some big differences:

Artist are human

There is a dramatic difference between learning from or being inspired by an artist and incorporating it wholesale into an LLM

Artists can use human judgement and knowledge of social norms to decide what art is or is not appropriate to utilize. (e.g. a painting in the museum versus someone's tribute to a dead loved one on DeviantArt)

There's a big difference both in the amount of learning and the amount of output between an AI and a human.

There's a big difference between an artist and a megacorporation.

Andy Warhol did in fact compensate the artists whose work he incorporated into his art. So there is definitely precident.

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#199

Post by dgellow »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #197
dgellow wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you modify the output, you don’t magically get copyright on the whole output, only the section you modified

if you modify enough of the output as to make it unrecognizable as the machine output -- that's a new work created by a human. i.e. you don't have to change every line. same thing applies to sampling in music. if i change enough of a sample as to make it unrecognizable, then i don't need to worry about registering/licensing the sample.

Yeah, but then you end up more or let rewriting the LLM output, which defeats the purpose of using agents, no?

Re: Copyright does not protect AI-generated content in EU

#200

Post by harimau777 »

jesterswilde wrote: post #113
harimau777 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we got rid of copyright, what would prevent corporations from simply stealing artist's work?

Isn't that what the AI companies already did?

Yes, and they should either be prosecuted or forced to compensate their victims.
Post reply on HN