321–330 of 562 posts
Would this mean that ILM / Pixar will be unable to copyright their AI-generated movies? Assume that they generate the entire movie in low poly count with flat shading, enough to properly prime an AI to generate incredible-looking movies. It simply cannot be true that they would lose the copyright to it just because they immersed it in AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt say that, it says that anything thats solely produced by simply prompting is not owned. I have seen very few works that want copyright and are solely prompts. From your own link: "“To be sure,” the Court further explained, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." "The Office agrees that there is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in…
You left out the big "but". But if ai gets more optimized and automated our current conclusion will be more bolstered.
"There may come a time when prompts can sufficiently control expressive elements in AI-generated outputs to reflect human authorship. If further advances in technology provide users with increased control over those expressive elements, a different conclusion may be called for"
Because any "advancement" in this space is predicated on getting tighter control over the requested outcome.
You can already script a local image generator to come up with random images based on text searches or LLM output. Thats already not copyrightable anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt say that, it says that anything thats solely produced by simply prompting is not owned. I have seen very few works that want copyright and are solely prompts. From your own link: "“To be sure,” the Court further explained, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." "The Office agrees that there is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in…
It sounds like even something minimal like choosing, applying, and adjusting one of the nodes in something like ComfyUI would be sufficient.
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.
If you buy an expensive camera with expensive lenses, you will be able to take such photos, won't you?
There's a technical aspect around camera and photo settings. This is largely objective. In certain conditions, certain settings deliver certain qualities.
Then, there's a subjective side. Framing, composition, other artistic decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you can make your prompt so specific that the AI generates substantially the same image every time you run it, I think you're perpetually vulnerable to the argument that significant decision making was done without human hands and therefore the work is not primarily human created.
As kids we did an art project where you mixed colors with some yoghurt-like substance. You drop it on the paper and then fold it. This created these beautiful arrangements of colors. Does this mean that those works are not copyrighted either since the kids didn't actually direct where each color goes? Every time you do this you'd get a substantially different picture too.
This is actually a bad example. It's too easy for an IP attorney to bring in an expert witness,(read: physicist), and blow it out of the water in a courtroom.
I won't go into the details, but basically, you got different arrangements every time because the human did different things every time. In the case of generative AI, you get different arrangements every time when the human does the exact same thing every time.
So, if you can find it, the counterexample you're looking for is one where the human does the exact same thing every time. (In an unassailable mathematical and physics based sense of the word "same"). But gets different results.
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…
The number 5 is not copyrightable, but if I take your short story and replace every space with the number 5 it's still subject to the original copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If I lend you my camera to take pictures you choose, do I hold the copyright because I own the camera? (No)
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…
Frivolous but sadly common. Someone need to nail down the legal language. As you can see here though, it's clearly not an unanimously obvious ruling though.
There was nothing to nail down here. The Copyright Office rejected the registration. The Review Board affirmed. The trial court affirmed. Three appeals court judges affirmed. No dissenting opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. If I set up an entire scene with props and artwork for a photoshoot with a model, but I would like to actually be the model so I ask a friend to go behind the tripod and tap the shutter, the friend holds the copyright?
well, you use a remote shutter release or a timer, and remove all ambiguity by removing the friend. there's a scene in one of those Matthew McConaughey romcoms where he plays a photog. The crew has a scene completely setup up and ready to go so that he just walks in, hits the shutter release one time, and then walks away with little care as job is done. He's now credited for that photo, yet did the least effort possi…