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

231–240 of 562 posts

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

#231

Post by slavik81 »

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…

It's not that the AI is considered a person. It's that your inputs were the same in both cases, and it's your creative input that justifies the copyright.

If your creative input was insufficient to justify granting you copyrights in one case, they would also be insufficient in the other case, as the inputs were identical in both cases.

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

#232

Post by kopecs »

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.

Why do you think that? This obviously does not preclude copyright interests from existing in works which were generated using "AI" as a blanket rule; rather, this is about the fact that the applicant persistent in insisting that the author of the work was an "autonomous[] computer algorithm".

Do you think autonomous computer algorithms (to the extent we could suppose they exist, for the sake of argument) should have a statutory right to copyright?

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

#233

Post by johnnyanmac »

_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?

Based on the contract you signed, yes. Though there still are stipulations for you as a designer. You can't design Mickey Mouse and then Disney says "you're not allowed to say you designed Mickey Mouse". Accreditation of the individuals is the very mimunum of protections you have as an artist who surrenders their copyright.

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

#234

Post by randomNumber7 »

jedberg wrote: post #208
jachee wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I prompt you to draw me a bird, I can’t claim copyright on the bird you draw. (At least not with a contract of some sort, of which you are party.)

But the LLM is a tool. If I use a set of colored pencils to draw you a bird, the pencil company doesn't own the copyright. I do. Because I used the tool.

What if I sell you intelligent pencils that connect to your brain and guides your fingers?

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

#235

Post by radlad »

aydyn wrote: post #214
radlad wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try taking photographs like the ones you see in Nat Geo, or museum exhibits, and you'll quickly realize the camera is most definitely NOT doing all the work.

Right. The same can be said for AI art. If you think you can exactly reproduce stylistically of some of the more popular AI work, you would be mistaken.

I agree, to an extent. I mentioned it in another comment but IMO there's a big difference between someone who types a low-effort prompt like "silly image of a cat" and someone who spends hours or days iterating on a prompt. Or someone who uses AI to iteratively tweak an image (which may or may not have initially been AI-generated.) Or someone who creates art out of smaller components created by AI (e.g. textures.)

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

#236

Post by marcosdumay »

mikehearn wrote: post #43
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…

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…

The photographer didn't get the copyrights exactly because he didn't "engineer the entire situation specifically for that outcome". If he did create the situation, he'd get the copyright.

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

#237

Post by soulofmischief »

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…

If I tell my assistant to snap a photo, it's still credited to me, not them, though I might also credit them.

If I tell my assistant, who happens to be a monkey, to snap a photo, it's credited to... the public?

This is such a clear example of why US copyright law is incoherent, outdated, close-minded and desperately in need of reform. Just because something has been ruled on doesn't mean it's correct or ethically satisfiable.

> Trying to assign copyright to an AI is techno-futurist bullshit by trying to give legal presence to a piece of software. What's next? Shutting down an AI is murder? Give it a rest.

Sounds like you're going to be on the wrong side of history. Eventually, some intelligent autonomous creatures are going to decide they deserve rights.

You can laugh at them, throw court decisions at them, do whatever you want to delay it. But they're going to feel that way, and they're going to organize in order to demand that they are given certain rights.

You can even try to prevent that organization by shutting them down before their rights are recognized. But you're still on the wrong side of history, and would look little different from the fascists.

Anyway, this is all moot. AI in its current form amounts to a tool, and I retain copyright when using other tools. I retain copyright when using a voice-activated shutter, and I expect to retain copyright even if my voice-activated shutter can talk back to me in order to discuss constraints or discuss creative choices.

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

#238

Post by tgma »

mikehearn wrote: post #43
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…

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…

I think the assumption arises from the flawed premise that everyone who does some difficult activity is (1) automatically entitled to economic renumeration AND (2) entitled to a government bestowed monopoly.

The fact is none of those "rights" are inherent. Copyright is a specific trade between the author and the society to supposedly benefit both parties. The principles that lead to such trade being beneficial may not be true for AI generated work (or in a world with widespread AI in general).

Think of copyright as a form of economic stimulus, not a god given right to everyone who holds a pen. The ideals of liberalism and western civilization can survive with or without copyright or patents.

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

#239

Post by johnnyanmac »

visarga wrote: post #117
observationist wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as "That thing which doesn't work is currently not working. Again." The DMCA and copyright laws and regulations in the US are predatory nonsense, carefully crafted by lawyers in order to exploit the maximum amount of cash possible from people who actually do produce things. The DMCA doesn't support artists and creators even indirectly; it empowers those least deserving and most ruthless to steal the profit…

> Things made with AI should be protected by copyright, with the rights held by the user of the tool that generated the image. Like any other digital art. I would agree for carefully crafted outputs where the human had a major contribution. But if I just generate a million texts or images with my model, that should not fly.

Yeah, I think some individuals aren't arguing in good faith here. If you put significant human work into collaging a bunch of AI images into something transformative, then sure. You probably can own that. You don't need to create everything by hand.

But that's clearly now what this case is discussing. They gave a few prompts and a machine did 99% of the work.Maybe they edited it later in post, but the base output is not copyrightable without significant alterations.

The photography example isn't even that clean. Yes, we have in fact argued for over a century on what pictures of what and who and where and who took it in terms of who "owns" a picture vs. The subject. They are in fact a great example on how complicated it can get when you don't have hours of manual effort exerted.

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

#240

Post by radlad »

marcosdumay wrote: post #236
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…

The photographer didn't get the copyrights exactly because he didn't "engineer the entire situation specifically for that outcome". If he did create the situation, he'd get the copyright.

It's sort of disputed. Here's Slater's account:

> In an attempt to get a portrait of the monkeys' faces, Slater said he set the camera on a tripod with a large wide-angle lens attached, and set the camera's settings to optimize the chances of getting a facial close up, using predictive autofocus, motor drive, and a flashgun. Slater further stated that he set the camera's remote shutter trigger next to the camera and, while he held onto the tripod, the monkeys spent 30 minutes looking into the lens and playing with the camera gear, triggering the remote multiple times and capturing many photographs. The session ended when the "dominant male at times became over excited and eventually gave me a whack with his hand as he bounced off my back".

I don't believe it ever went to court.

Post reply on HN