Interesting, what if I create my art using AI (Photoshop AI fill or ChatGPT)
US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
41–50 of 562 posts
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#42> Because many of the Copyright Act's provisions make sense only if an author is a human being, the best reading of the Copyright Act is that human authorship is required for registration This is going to be a very selective judgment.
As all interpretations of law are. That's why there's the profession of lawyer and they make very good money if they can convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of the law. As a software engineer I see the dangers of such an inexact system. Where we can put people in jail for the rest of their lives or let others go free just because there's so much gray area in the interpretation of the law.
As a software engineer I see the dangers of a nominally exhaustively-specified system. Where people would spend their lives in jail or go free depending on whether a majority of legislators had considered that particular edge case.
It’s better than judges have some discretion.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#43This 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…
I still can't believe the guy went to Indonesia, went into the monkeys' habitat, gained their trust, set up the camera on a tripod in a way the monkeys would have access to it, adjusted the focus/exposure to capture a facial close-up -- basically engineered the entire situation specifically for that outcome, and simply because he didn't physically hit the shutter he lost credit for the photo. Meanwhile I can open my phone's camera, spin around three times, take a photo of whatever the hell happens to be in its viewfinder and somehow that is sufficient human creativity to deserve copyright protection.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#44I think there needs to be legal delineation between "I wrote a program that helps me create artwork" vs. "I wrote a program that scrapes the internet so I can plagiarize other people's artwork" i.e. AI.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#45This 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…
I would assume that whomever prompts the AI is the author of the work. Adobe or Dell doesn't get to claim ownership to your work just because they made the tool or computer.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#46"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?
In this particular instance, the claim was filled out that way.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#47I doubt this will settle the issue. We are about to enter the age of AI generated X (movies, games, etc. 'I want to watch a western tonight.' ...'generating'...). Would the end user own the copyright on that since they prompted it? We are very early days still so the deep implications of the direction and potential of this technology aren't even remotely understood well enough yet.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#48"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?
It's not a necessary test for this case, but in general I would suggest using a legal test that is AI agnostic. Imagine there is a service where you can submit a prompt and get an image in return. You might submit a prompt like, "a man in steampunk gear sitting at a table playing with poker chips".
If a human artist draws an image based on that prompt, do you share joint copyright between the two of you? Or, does the artist have full copyright over the image they drew?
If your contribution was insufficient for joint copyright in the case of the human artist, then it was also insufficient to grant you copyright in the case of the AI artist. To know whether you have a claim on the copyright of the resulting image, you only need to look at your own creative inputs.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my expectation of where this will ultimately end up.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#49I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering:
> As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. Dr. Thaler’s copyright registration application listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author, even though the Creativity Machine is not a human being. As a result, the Copyright Office appropriately denied Dr. Thaler’s application.
It seems like Dr. Thaler's argument was just weak, since generative AI works often are authored in the first instance by a human being. For instance, any Midjourney or Stable Diffusion-generated image will be sourced from a prompt, which is typically written by a human. Anyone who has spent a little time trying to craft the perfect prompt knows there is a creative process therein that represents real work being done by a human. Similarly for img2img workflows, using a real photograph taken by a human. There, AI is only being used to transform a copyrightable input. Therefore such works – though certainly not all AI works – should be eligible for copyright, IMO.
Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted
#50This 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…
Can they still try the Corporations Are People angle?
In what way do you think corporate personhood is relevant here?