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

281–290 of 562 posts

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

#281

Post by creer »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #273
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…

Ah, I see, so all those Hollywood camera operators own the copyright for all the footage they took for studios. Multi-trillion dollar class action lawsuit here we come...

Perhaps the people who do photography and filming for a business have thought of it. So, yes, but there are of course multiple ways to work with a team (or in a team of two - not to be the one pressing the shutter and still being the one owning the copyright.)

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

#282

Post by shagie »

radlad wrote: post #97
codedokode wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy an expensive camera with expensive lenses, you will be able to take such photos, won't you?

In fact, you can take such photos with a cheap camera and cheap lenses if you are skilled. No, equipment does not make a photograph. (source: I own expensive cameras. Taking good photographs is still hard.) Time and place matter. Your subject matters. Your composition matters. Your lighting matters. When it's done well, the viewer doesn't realize this.

I love Ted Orland's panorama photographs - https://www.anseladams.com/products/tree-in-snowstorm-yosemi... and https://www.freestylephoto.com/making-holga-panoramas

While he shoots with the cheapest of toy cameras, he is very skilled.

> 1966, Ted enrolled in as a fledgling photographer in Ansel Adams' Yosemite Photography Workshop --an event which markedly changed the course of his artistic life. He returned to Yosemite as Ansel's workshop assistant the following year, and in 1970 moved to Carmel to work fulltime as Ansel's Assistant and printer of Adams' Yosemite Special Edition Prints. Ted also returned for fifteen seasons as an Instructor at Ansel's Yosemite Workshops.

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

#283

Post by Maken »

davely wrote: post #262
radlad wrote: post #112

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...

Oof, this gets into all sorts of weird legal grey areas. - 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 long…

- 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?

On a related note, I believe it's just a question of time that in some high profile case (murder, rape, thief) direct photographic evidence of the perpetrator will have to be discarded, because it was taken with a smartphone and it's imposible to determine to which degree it was altered.

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

#284

Post by mistrial9 »

gdubs wrote: post #203
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…

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…

> Lots of contemporary artists have assistants that do the actual painting, sculpting, installation, etc.

this is outlandish bullshit

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

#285

Post by creer »

soulofmischief wrote: post #237
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 sat…

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

You can do what you want. But only legally so if their contract says so.

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

#286

Post by parasense »

I'm sure many of you remember the Monkey selfie from a few years ago... meh!

I'm also sure many of you understand the farther reaching implications of this ruling, especially how it relates to software code written by AI. All that code written by AI cannot be licensed as anything besides public domain. Just think of all the code people have checked into git, that they did not write! Next, please consider the implications towards the open source community if ever there is controversy about Linux kernel code that was AI generated, and then suddenly cannot be covered by the GPL. I think the neck-beard people over at NetBSD can sometimes be eccentric about many things, but this topic was deserved when they loudly banned all AI generated code from their repos.

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

#287

Post by protocolture »

>Stephen Thaler

So this guy is arguably doing more damage than anyone to AI. The rulings against him are inarguable. He wants his custom AI to be included as an author.

People take these rulings, misunderstand them and assume all AI tools create work that cannot be copyrighted, when plainly, every other AI tool lists the user as the author, and not the tool.

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

#288

Post by Spooky23 »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #273
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…

Ah, I see, so all those Hollywood camera operators own the copyright for all the footage they took for studios. Multi-trillion dollar class action lawsuit here we come...

Hollywood camera operators are in a union with a contract. They are working for hire, and have no claim beyond their contract.

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

#289

Post by protocolture »

iamleppert wrote: post #34

So just don't tell anyone you used AI? How exactly are they going to prove it? And does this mean any works created with the assistance of graphics software, like Photoshop, are not copyrightable? What is the definition of AI here? They failed to define what AI means, which means that if there is no test, the ruling can't stand on its own.

>So just don't tell anyone you used AI?

This guy literally wants his pet AI to be listed as the author. He then wants to sublicense the work back to himself. The AI as the author is the point.

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

#290

Post by protocolture »

kristopolous wrote: post #8

"affirmed that a work of art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law" Does that exist? What would that even be? A "random2image" model?

Thaler built a tool that spits out images and other stuff. He wants the AI to retain ownership, and for it to grant him a sublicense to him. Its bonkers.
Post reply on HN