261–270 of 562 posts
Can AI create at all?
By our own human definitions of creation, does anything spit-out by LLM, ML, AI, have any merit as a created -thing-?
Can the sum of what is learned by a model become more, and if so, can that create something? Anything?
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…
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...
- All of our phones do a bunch of computational photography where AI tooling improves a photo in various ways. In that case, is any photo taken by a modern phone not copyrightable?
- If it is copyrightable, what if someone uses an Img2Img tool or inpainting with something like Stable Diffusion (or Photoshop) in order to slightly modify an image. Is that no longer copyrightable?
(FYI, my questions aren't directed at or attacking you -- just interesting hypotheticals.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She’s directing the orchestra. It’s semantically different than prompting. It’s not like the conductor just says “okay, play Canon in D” and calls it quits. She actively participates in the performance and creation of the end work. And different conductors can absolutely yield different versions of the exact same arrangement. They’re as much a performer as any of the instrumentalists. So yes, they get royalties like…
How is that any different than a prompt engineer other than the degree to which "...actively participates in the performance and creation"?
A conductor has control over the tempo and cadence of the entire piece. They can choose to pause the entire performance on the spot and then resume right where they left off. They may adjust sections to play louder or quieter based on weather and acoustics.
And that's all during performance. There's work needing in at the bare minimum arranging pieces based on the band.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no person to assign the copyright, so there is no copyright. Wait, so if I have a script that generates some source-code autonomously (based on whatever trigger I setup say in a ci/cd pipeline) then that code is not copyrightable? What about macros? This seems silly to me.
I think this ruling is wrong. It's not hard to imagine a compiler using AI to optimize byte code, and so now the binary it creates is no longer copyrightable? Compilers and transpilers, even though someone else may have wrote them, the courts have held the the copyright of the output binary is whoever wrote the source code. In that sense AI is nothing more than a English language to image compiler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My initial response to this was to think of all the artists who don't actually create their own work. Lots of contemporary artists have assistants that do the actual painting, sculpting, installation, etc. Even way back a lot of masters were credited for work that was done by apprentices. But, then on the other hand I suppose that in the eyes of the law, a monkey can't legally sign a contract agreeing to pass ownersh…
The real issue is that the monkey (or Stable Diffusion) cannot be sued in civil court for copyright infringement, so they can't be granted copyrights in the first place: it makes no sense to have one-way streets of legal responsibility. Note that a human-made curation of AI or animal art is protected by copyright (e.g. you can copyright an AI art coffee table book). The original case involved an AI-generated graphic…
That seems to be a very flawed argument.
I am perfectly fine with parents having a legal responsibility to take care of their children without the children owing any legal obligation to their parents.
Imagine being required by law to act in the interests of your financial adviser. It would almost be codifying the reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about selection? If I select the good image from 1000 others? Curation is also a contribution to art.
I would say curation and editing are much more important than creating the art itself, but that might be a very unpopular opinion.
What about movies like Deadpool3, where AI wrote part of the script?
These things are basically like JPEGs for knowledge and text. If I make a JPEG of a work I do not strip copyright from it. Of course since the trained model is a cumulative set of all inputs the rights are the set disjoint of the rights the trainer had on the data.
If we allow these things to be copyrightable it allows what amounts to for-profit corporate piracy and unlicensed resale of all works.
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…
If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?
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…
As I understand that is a misunderstanding of the case. They argued that the animal should get the copyright, and lost, because animals do not qualify. They did not establish that pressing the button is required for the human to qualify for copyright. They established that a monkey pressing the button doesn't qualify the monkey. (because the monkey never qualifies) If they would have argued that the human should have…
Section 313.2
The copyright office said that photographs taken by monkeys nor murals painted by elephants are works that may be copyrighted. This is based on Burrow-Giles Lithography vs Sarony ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/111/53 )
The issue is that the photographer / owner of the camera didn't exercise any creative control over the photograph.
> On 22 August 2014, the day after the US Copyright Office published their opinion, a spokesperson for the UK Intellectual Property Office was quoted as saying that, while animals cannot own copyright under UK law, "the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
And this is a "it's complicated" and further complicated by the difference in threshold of originality with US law and sweat of the brow for UK law.