So anything authored by an AI is effectively public domain? And does that go for code as well as art?
I did a little reading on the subject, and it looks like these questions are still in the process of being answered.
US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
371–380 of 562 posts
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the person who "took the photo" the thing that pressed the button and not the person who did 99% of the work?
I think my understand is that because the work itself is already covered by different laws (eg trespassing), you had the opportunity to make a verbal contract with the person who took the photo. And the same in reverse: because they used your camera, they implicitly agreed for you to have the right to that copy of their work. If they didn’t get the copyright automatically, then they wouldn’t be able to assign it to y…
Assuming I read this right, and that’s a big assumption, do I have this.. right? The guy in my hypothetical below knows the copyright law and is making a legal request.
guy is walking by family and is asked to take their photo
guy takes photo
same guy asks for a copy of the family photo
awkwardness intensifies
————-
I really liked what you wrote and appreciate your knowledge you brought to the thread, but what I really loved about reading your comment was the deeper and deeper you took us into the weeds of law the stranger and further divorced from reality it feels. Maybe that’s just me?
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#373copyright is full of edge cases because it is not a "right" by any natural definition, rather it's an incoherent system of selective legal persecution that denies and oppresses humanity's natural Right to Copy, the true right that we inherit from the fact that we owe our very existence to genetic plagiarism
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed that the selling point of the picture is the supposed self awareness and intent involved in the monkey taking a selfie? Yes, of course the author has always wanted the copyright. But the whole reason the picture has value contradicts the basis for that copyright claim. You can’t simultaneously say that you did all the work, and that it’s so cool to see a genuine, self-directed monkey selfie.
From his blog in 2011 [1]. > I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens. > ... > They played with the camera until of course some images…
It doesn't sound like you're disputing my core point, that he's
- trying to benefit (financially) from the unrebutted presumption that the picture shows the monkey's self-awareness and understanding that it's taking a selfie
while also
- trying to benefit (in the courts) from the diametrically opposite position that the picture shows no such thing because of how staged it is.
Thus, "trying to have it both ways".
If your point is just that I shouldn't have represented the subtext of his marketing as an actual quote, while it's okay to do that for the argument he made in the courts ... sure, point conceded.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
The artist still owns the copyright. Payment by itself does not transfer copyright. To do that the artist needs to explicitly sign away those rights. This happens in employment all the time. Part of the paperwork you sign is about transferring over the copyrights from yourself to the company. I highly recommend you check your own paperwork to see exactly how much this covers, since some states allow contracts that co…
doesn't need to explicitly, it's enough to have the understanding that it's a "work for hire" situation (at least in the US) of course just giving someone money is not sufficient to establish this, but telling someone that "I want to hire you to make a photo for me (of me)" and they acknowledge, then that is probably enough.
As sibling comment said, this is not correct.
In wedding and portrait photography, many clients think that they own copyrights to the photos but they don’t and sometimes get in trouble for violating photographers’ copyrights.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlicensed Human Code is 100% copyrighted and closed source. Unlicensed AI Code is 0% copyrighted and open source and can't be closed.
When I have a LLM that spits out code identical to copyrighted code can I then use it legally? Otherwise I would need to check the output of every LLM for copyright infringement
Not if it was trained on that copyrighted code; the copyright "survives" the training process, legally-speaking, just as it does if you hear a song, and then output (even truly accidentally) the exact same song and claim it as your own.
If you can perfectly prove that no copyrighted code was used in training a model and that the model was not algorithmically designed to output that code, based on knowledge of the copyrighted code on the creator's part, but it outputs code identical to a copyrighted program, it could very likely not be infringement... but obviously that's a high bar to clear for a complex program.
If your model always outputs
> #!/bin/bash > echo "hello world"
another programmer will likely not be able to claim copyright infringement on it. If it always outputs Adobe Photoshop, you're gonna need a very good lawyer, and a Truman-show-esque mountain of evidence on your side.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#377Can someone just tell me: if I make an AI photo then do some tweaks in photoshop do I now have a copyright claim since I worked on this photo and it had no author? If I use the AI photo as a reference to make a painting by hand it’s also my copyright since the original photo isn’t owned?
(1) ask a lawyer if your tweaks were sufficiently creative to justify a copyright. (2) the work produced by the AI photo generator may itself be sufficiently derivative of other works that your work is also derivative and the original author may have a copyright claim against you since only they can authorize the distribution of derivative works. (3) If you use the AI photo as a reference for a painting, this again f…
Can’t do shit anymore
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#378Earlier 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...
Take out the second person and imagine if you set the camera to a timer. Perhaps we record the path of the sun every day for a year to create an analemma. That's something artistic that should absolutely qualify for copyright. Who owns the copyright then? Nobody? Because if so, that feels like bullshit. Like we're making up the rules completely arbitrarily with no logic at all. At some level in many electronic system…
I believe the correct answer is “nobody deserves the copyright”. It’s a big fat myth that creatives would starve if copyright disappeared tomorrow. Think of all the countless hours society has wasted arguing about who owns creative expression. If we assign it to the public, we can move on and find better ways to keep creatives housed and fed.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just zooming in on txt2img, an AI generated image is: - The text prompt - The negative prompt - The model - The model seed - Any LoRAs selected What about this is copyrightable? The specific text used in the prompt? This would mean I could copyright "man holding apple". Maybe the summation of all of the above? But that would be akin to copyrighting a specific Adobe Photoshop workflow.
That sounds to me like a recipe. Recipes their interaction with copyright are well-established, legally speaking, in the United States.
Their interaction being they are in no way copyrightable because they are functional, not creative expressions. That's part of why every recipe has a dramatic story, so they can have a clear copyright case if copied wholesale.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really a fan of destroying a framework just because some rich people finally find it inconvenient. You know it won't be retroactive anyway.
The common people have always found it inconvenient. Pirated media routinely has a better user experience than otherwise. AO3 shows how powerfully people are drawn to fan-fiction (which still exists in a very legally grey area, despite the size of the community). I don't think a lot of people here support what happened to Aaron Swartz. "Information wants to be free". If it's also now inconvenient to the rich, I think…
> I think one can reasonably ask who exactly is benefiting?
My guess would be the authors, photographers, etc. Many of who are not the rich but middle class. I would think if they did not benefit, none of this would even be an issue as they could release their work and waive the copyright-isn't that what the Creative Commons license is for? If copyright were forced on the author and they had no way to share their work freely, if they choose to do so, then that would be a problem, imo.