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

31–40 of 562 posts

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

#31

Post by quadragenarian »

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…

Wait just so i understand it, if a single human creates an AI model and trains it, and then prompts it to create an image, is that considered "human intervention" and does that make that human the author of that image?

What if its a group of 5 humans that built the LLM and one of them prompts it?

Isn't all AI built by some of group of humans? When is AI treated like its own entity like a monkey versus a tool made by a human?

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

#32

Post by kopecs »

bogwog wrote: post #19

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…

I don't think it takes that much imagination here. Not sure what good the first step is actually doing you. Might as well just AI-generate your racketeering demand letters without doing that part.

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

#33

Post by jedberg »

I'm not sure how this actually matters. Knowing this ruling exists, why would anyone ever claim an AI created their art without human assistance? Even if the AI created the art just from the prompt, the human still made the prompt.

Even if the prompt was "make art".

I just don't understand how you could ever have AI art without human intervention. Is there a legal definition of "human intervention" that has some minimum amount of work?

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

#34

Post by iamleppert »

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.

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

#35

Post by tgv »

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…

> 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 kinds of aspects of the image, for it to be the instructor's merit, to me (that's an important caveat).

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

#37

Post by cvoss »

intrasight wrote: post #23

What, if any, practical implications does this have? Why would a real person or company want to specify a non real person as an author?

The practical implication is you can't copyright something that your AI generated. As the article notes, copyright applications are also being rejected in cases where a human asserts authorship over an AI generated work.
Post reply on HN