Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#41

Post by deepsun »

iamleppert wrote: post #30

Based on his argument, the human component should and rightfully be copyrightable. In this case, it's the prompt or conversation he had with the AI. That should definitely be able to be copyrightable, but I agree that the image itself should not. This is the fundamental problem with AI -- if the government isn't willing to protect it, there is fundamentally no market for it. What does that say about the value of the…

Yes, but we need to figure out whether it's good or bad.

E.g. medieval craftsmen assumed that monopolies were good, but today we consider them bad.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#43

Post by michaelt »

Spivak wrote: post #16

Y'all really want to be mad at this but this is one of those tragic cases where the worst person is correct. * AI companies claim that training should not be covered by copyright. This says nothing at all about the model outputs which can still violate copyright. * Curation makes something a copyrightable work. This applies to photographers and machine generated art. The copyright office's ruling doesn't change that…

> Curation makes something a copyrightable work.

Are you sure about that?

I know one or two countries have "database rights" which give a special type of IP protection to collections of methodically collected facts, like digital maps and phone books. But I've never heard of "curation" being copyrightable in and of itself.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#45

Post by volleygman180 »

It's fun to ponder how modern society will evolve if this same mindset is applied to other domains that generative AI is eventually used for, specifically sciences. If AI (art) works cannot be copyrighted, there's hope that the same would apply to the other domains and prohibiting AI-generated works from being patented. Imagine AI finding 50 new ways of making insulin that don't violate the existing patents...

One can dream, right?! This could cripple monopolies and bring more power back to small businesses and individuals, as the capitalistic playing-field is leveled.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#46

Post by Manuel_D »

greatgib wrote: post #35
uxhacker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the prompt should be copyrightable?

A prompt is like an idea, it is not copyrightable. Imagine giving a copyright to a discussion? But nothing force you to reveal the prompt you used assuming you are using the right tool for protecting your secrets.

Talk podcasts are copyrighted. I'm not sure why you think a discussion wouldn't be copyrightable.

Re: Famous AI Artist Says He's Losing Millions from People Stealing His Work

#48

Post by fny »

iamleppert wrote: post #30

Based on his argument, the human component should and rightfully be copyrightable. In this case, it's the prompt or conversation he had with the AI. That should definitely be able to be copyrightable, but I agree that the image itself should not. This is the fundamental problem with AI -- if the government isn't willing to protect it, there is fundamentally no market for it. What does that say about the value of the…

Recipes are not copyrightable.

If the food you produce with them can no longer be protected, what value are the tools used to create them?

Post reply on HN