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

491–500 of 562 posts

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

#491

Post by Dylan16807 »

I-M-S wrote: post #445
johnisgood wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I set a delay but it is not technically me who presses the key? Would that count because it was me who set the delay? What if I tell a friend to set the delay? All this is pretty much grey area anyways. Both sides have merit.

To me, it just shows how bogus the whole idea of copyright is.

I would not say bogus, I would just say it's a bit too easy to get copyright on a photograph.

But it would be difficult to adjust that without making the rules even messier.

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

#492

Post by wooger »

mubou wrote: post #489
thewebguyd wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pretty much have to. The sensors on smart phones are so tiny that a true RAW file out of them would be pretty much unusable. They simply don't capture enough light. The only way at this point to improve photo quality out of a phone is a bigger sensor, or software. Thus far, everyone has chosen doing it in software. Though you should definitely be able to adjust the amount of post processing, some is always going…

I'd be awesome if there was a phone meant for photographers (who can't be arsed to carry a DSLR all the time). Like, take the sensor off a compact point-and-shoot and slap it on a smartphone. Because honestly it feels silly that point-and-shoots still exist in 2025; you'd think they'd have gone the way of the mp3 player.

Because you also want the lens, which is exactly what doesn't fit on a phone form factor

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

#493

Post by leecarraher »

how much of the work can be ai generated, would a minor human copyrightable addition to the artwork constitute an original work. what would stop someone from generating art and popping a watermark or some imperceivable steganographic addition such that the ai part and human part cannot be disentangled.

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

#494

Post by [deleted] »

Aloisius wrote: post #260
soerxpso wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case mentioned above where someone just spins around in their chair and takes a random photo on their phone (which they would then own the rights to), did that person really do any 'creative input'? All they did was press a button on a tool, with no further thought. That actually seems like less creative input than when I type a prompt into a tool and hit 'generate'. Why are cameras, image editors, etc, tools…

If you can show that no human creative expression was involved in composition, timing, etc, then no, it's not copyrightable. There's a very good argument for security camera footage not being copyrightable for that very reason. There just hasn't been any case law yet to test it.

[deleted]

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

#495

Post by tiborsaas »

seanhunter wrote: post #452
tiborsaas wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 call…

I'm confused, are they both entitled to their copyright? (which I think should be the case)

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

#496

Post by xvokcarts »

thereisnospork wrote: post #205
jedberg wrote: post #33

I'm not sure how this actually matters. Knowing this ruling exists, why would anyone ever claim an AI created their art without human assistance? Even if the AI created the art just from the prompt, the human still made the prompt. Even if the prompt was "make art". I just don't understand how you could ever have AI art without human intervention. Is there a legal definition of "human intervention" that has some mini…

Not the least contrived situation, but I could imagine an inanimate object object falling from a shelf during an earthquake (a bonified 'act of god') which enters a 1 or 2 letter prompt and generates an image if the AI interface window was left open.

Everybody gangsta until an object object starts falling.

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

#497

Post by fsflover »

1659447091 wrote: post #380
handoflixue wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

This is not so simple: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476

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

#498

Post by Dylan16807 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #477
mubou wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They pretty much have to. The sensors on smart phones are so tiny that a true RAW file out of them would be pretty much unusable. They simply don't capture enough light. The only way at this point to improve photo quality out of a phone is a bigger sensor, or software. Thus far, everyone has chosen doing it in software. Though you should definitely be able to adjust the amount of post processing, some is always going…

Anything software on the phone can do, software on the desktop could do. So I still want the raw image as an option.

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

#499

Post by d1sxeyes »

thatcat wrote: post #356
therealpygon wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, in situation 1 there is no issue. In situation 2, if the original image can be copyrighted, AI tooling to augment the image doesn’t prevent copyright. The copyright offices guidance on the subject is a worthwhile read, since they detail out the difference between using AI as a tool to modify human authorship, vs the AI taking minimal input alone and generating a resulting image.

What if the ai augments the shutter timing because you were shaking? The ai monkey pressed the shutter so no copyright I guess? Pretty sure several apps do this on night photo mode.

Then I would assume it’d be treated as a tool in the creative process, similarly to a ruler helping you draw a straight line, but the author is still the human.

But they say when you assume you make an ass out of you and me, and we all know the law is an ass, so who knows.

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

#500

Post by d1sxeyes »

Maken wrote: post #283
davely wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

- 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? On a related note, I believe it's just a question of time that in some high profile case (murder, rape, thief) direct photographic evidence of the perpetrator will have to be discarded, because it was taken with a smartphone and it's impos…

This has sort of already happened. There was a fair bit of fuss around a very similar topic during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The prosecution were not allowed to zoom in on drone footage because the defence successfully argued that zooming in results in the creation of information through interpolation which was not there in the original recording.
Post reply on HN