241–250 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume that whomever prompts the AI is the author of the work. Adobe or Dell doesn't get to claim ownership to your work just because they made the tool or computer.
If the output always changes for the same input prompt, did you really author anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as long as it was a human that told the computer to make the image There is the question of merit. IANAL/IIUC/etc., but I think it's necessary for a work to have merit to be copyrightable. Now, that's a somewhat vague term to me (perhaps it's clearer in a legal framework), but if I prompt "create a picture of a dog", the computer does most of the work. A prompt would have to be pretty concise, up to specifying all…
Maybe the best idea would be just to scrap copyright alltogether. It just blocks people from collaborating and building on top of each other's work. If everyone demanded royalties, where would Linux be? Wikipedia? scientific research? Could we even have this conversation in a forum?
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…
> What's next? Shutting down an AI is murder? I can see a possible future where AI actually exists and shutting one down could be murder. At that point it would even be a good thing to grant the AI personhood. What passes for "AI" these days doesn't come anywhere close to that, but I wouldn't say it could never happen.
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…
It's a weird world where works created with a prompt are not creative enough for protection but pictures taken by randomly pointing smartphone cameras (which use significant amounts of AI internally, btw) are copyrightable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. Did they have any creative input before hitting the shutter? Did they tell you to move? Or adjust lighting? Did they choose the angle or framing? These answers influence the answer to your question.
If they did then the monkey wouldn't have been awarded copyright on that photo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who owns the copyright when you ask someone to take a photo of you using your phone in a tourist location? According to Wikimedia's legal analysis, it depends.[0] Furthermore, authorship and copyright are distinct. [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Cop...
From that ruling to this case it extends that the local or tourist who took the photo would be the copyright holder which makes little sense.
I think its a good trade! I’ve made a lot of money on AI generated works and it was never from selling or licensing the copyright
I think that's a good ruling. Say I create a website that just sells AI generated logos. I set up some automation so I'm constantly generating millions of logos per day. I also have a bot that scrapes the web to try and find anyone using a logo similar to the ones on my website, and then send legal threats demanding payment for copying my artwork. I'm sure more imaginative scammers will find a way to copyright troll…
This is doing it the long way round. Just set up a website that generates every combination of pixels as you scroll down it. Or just scrape logos, barely change them, and publish them and threaten legal action.
Sure. I guess when it finishes your great great grand-children (I might be very generous here too) can deal with the fallout of such a brute force algorithm.
The current Reuters headline is "US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator". That's still kind of clickbaity, but far more accurate and correct than the link I see here on HN. This whole case has been a dumb waste of time for anyone but scurrilous headline writers. The plaintiff insisted on filling out the copyright app with their "creation" in the author field. Every legal opin…
As you can see here though, it's clearly not an unanimously obvious ruling though.