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

451–460 of 562 posts

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

#451

Post by cess11 »

nerdponx wrote: post #444
SiempreViernes wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further di…

By that logic, paintings aren't copyrightable either because of all the chemistry involved in drying pigment.

The limits of copyright are intrinsically arbitrary, since the right has its foundations in fantasy, i.e. supposed spiritual labour. An extension of the idea that your physical labour gives you property rights to the fruits of it, into the religious realm of the soul.

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

#452

Post by seanhunter »

tiborsaas wrote: post #398
dlivingston wrote: post #360

Earlier 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.

You just stated how an AI generated image should be copyrightable. You should be able to own the copyright to all the configuration settings. If those settings then can be transformed to a 100% deterministic image (true, since you provide the seed) then I don't see how this is different than developing a photo negative film and transferring it to paper. > This would mean I could copyright "man holding apple". I think…

> I think this is true today. You can have copyright on this phrase, just consider if it were the title of a song or poem.

That is not true today. You don't get a copyright on a phrase in particular if it was the title of a poem or song. For example:

"There's something in the way she moves" by James Taylor[1]

and "Something" by the Beatles[2] which starts with the same line.

James has the copyright over his song called "There's something in the way she moves" [3] and George Harrison's estate has the copyright over the one he wrote with the same title even though he probably copied it from James Taylor.

[1] https://youtu.be/p0FJUVo-BaM?si=fGR-TOim_8FS8rkO

[2] https://youtu.be/UelDrZ1aFeY?si=UG8c-cgfpgyH3I9n

[3] Which was the first one fwiw. He thinks because he signed to "Apple Records" (the Beatles' label) they heard his one when he recorded it before it was released and that maybe gave George Harrison the idea for the line.

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

#453

Post by shagie »

mschuster91 wrote: post #432
radlad wrote: post #112

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...

Let me add something even more funny: in Germany, some buildings and art installations are copyrighted which means they aren't allowed to be photographed for non-private usage despite being literally out in the open for everyone to see [1]. [1] https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000108536963/schraeges-urh...

This is country specific (as is copyright itself). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/120

> The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

This gets further complicated by sculptural works that are not part of the architecture of the building which have their own copyright. For example, the sculpture of lions in front of the New York Public Library are works of sculpture and not part of the architecture of the building and so photographs of them are derivative works... though that's not an issue now as they've fallen into public domain (they were the example given when I started photography as a sculpture that was often photographed along with architecture)... but are trademarked.

Then you get things like the Eiffel Tower which is public domain, but the lights (installed in 1985) are not... so a photograph of it, by night, is under copyright.

It's complicated.

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

#454

Post by mschuster91 »

shagie wrote: post #453
mschuster91 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me add something even more funny: in Germany, some buildings and art installations are copyrighted which means they aren't allowed to be photographed for non-private usage despite being literally out in the open for everyone to see [1]. [1] https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000108536963/schraeges-urh...

This is country specific (as is copyright itself). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/120 > The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which…

Yup, that's insane, all of it. Anything that is visible with the human eye or a reasonable camera (i.e. no 1200mm superzoom into someone's residence where a painting hangs) from the open street or any area accessible to the general public such as parking lots, airports and the likes should be freely redistributable.

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

#455

Post by dcow »

iamacyborg wrote: post #420
dcow wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Creatives absolutely would suffer if they lost copyright protection.

No they really wouldn't. Companies and fans would commission art. We pay our damn food service staff on “would you like to pay a little extra today” tips method. Don’t tell me, especially with zero justification, that creatives depend on the need to control who copies our society’s ultimately culture. There are absolutely other ways and we’re too scared to try them.

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

#456

Post by Goronmon »

I-M-S wrote: post #447
iamacyborg wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creatives absolutely would suffer if they lost copyright protection.

The person you're replying to explicitly stated that a different way to compensate creatives for their talents should be put in place in case copyright is eliminated.

"Just do something different that works better." is hardly an explicit statement.

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

#457

Post by mubou »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #439
radlad wrote: post #112

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...

Who owns your photo of the moon after Samsung uses "SceneOptimizer" to AI fix it? https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp...

Wow, that last "photo" is especially damning.

I hate how impossible it is nowadays to buy a phone with a camera that just takes photos without 'shopping them somehow. Even Pixels apply unnatural filters. It just ruins photos, which you often can't ever go back and retake...

(I know you can shoot in RAW, but I don't have time to develop every photo I take and I really shouldn't have to. Some phones' RAWs are actually post-filtering, too, and not actually "raw".)

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

#458

Post by nonethewiser »

iamleppert wrote: post #34

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.

>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?

This is a good question. More specifically, using photoshop with the integrated AI features. Where is the line exactly?

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

#459

Post by Ray20 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #420
dcow wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Creatives absolutely would suffer if they lost copyright protection.

Will there be any downsides?

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

#460

Post by sejje »

johnisgood wrote: post #397
sejje wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I ask a stranger to take my photo, and it turns out he's Ansel Adams? He's going to make some decisions about the framing etc, as one of the best photographers of all time.

So if I ask someone to take a photo, but I tell them "tilt the camera", I am the copyright holder, but if they do so without me "prompting" them, then I no longer am? Am I understanding you correctly?

No, because I was asking.
Post reply on HN