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

511–520 of 562 posts

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

#511

Post by Suppafly »

donatj wrote: post #431
tantalor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult to understand. Replace the monkey with a 2nd human, and it's obvious that "the guy" does not earn the copyright, it goes to the person who took the photo. If there was no person, then there is no copyright. The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no…

Who owns the copyright to the footage of a motion triggered security camera? The person breaking in? Is all motion triggered trail cam footage public domain? It seems pretty reasonable that copyright should lay with the entity that had the actual intention on creating a work. Not whatever force happened to trigger it.

>Is all motion triggered trail cam footage public domain?

i think a lot of us would be ok with that, so that's not the showstopper argument you might this it is.

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

#512

Post by Suppafly »

creer wrote: post #54
ssalka wrote: post #49

I 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 appli…

Thaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood. What's potentially more of a problem is the mention of artists using Midjourney and denied copyright - and very much separate cases from Thaler.

>Thaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood.

This, it was a poorly concocted scheme. People do stuff like this all the time, but even when they manage to confuse one branch of the government, the rest of the government isn't suddenly obligated to go along with it.

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

#513

Post by Suppafly »

fnordian_slip wrote: post #393
mminer237 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that really the reason for these stories? I only know about them from memes, and looked it up when I first read about it. In my language this trend hasn't caught on yet, thankfully. I always chalked it up to cultural differences (and judged Americans a little bit for it tbh, since the idea of integrating a story into a recipe sounds rather insane).

>Is that really the reason for these stories?

No, it's more about ads and SEO and the fact that a lot of people like the touchy feely aspect of the stories and that causes them to engage with the site for longer, leaving their own comments and returning to the site and such.

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

#514

Post by mschuster91 »

Suppafly wrote: post #510
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...

> 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]. I think most people agree that that is ridiculous. I'm not sure how they manage to enforce that, even with Europe's generally strong ideas around copyright and moral ownership and such.

> I'm not sure how they manage to enforce that, even with Europe's generally strong ideas around copyright and moral ownership and such.

Copyright holders use Google's reverse image search to find anyone who posts such photos to Twitter, Facebook or whatever, and then file civil damage claims.

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

#515

Post by thaumasiotes »

chii wrote: post #425
thaumasiotes wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you asked and they complied, there's a work contract between said photo-button presser and you No, this can't happen, because there is no consideration. > and the consideration paid is a word of thanks from you Nope. You can call it consideration, but that won't make it consideration.

consideration doesnt have to be money.

No, but it does have to exist. A private word of thanks isn't enough to even rise to that level.

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

#516

Post by iamacyborg »

mistrial9 wrote: post #284
gdubs wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My initial response to this was to think of all the artists who don't actually create their own work. Lots of contemporary artists have assistants that do the actual painting, sculpting, installation, etc. Even way back a lot of masters were credited for work that was done by apprentices. But, then on the other hand I suppose that in the eyes of the law, a monkey can't legally sign a contract agreeing to pass ownersh…

> Lots of contemporary artists have assistants that do the actual painting, sculpting, installation, etc. this is outlandish bullshit

You might be shocked to discover that this has been a thing for hundreds of years.

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

#517

Post by creer »

Suppafly wrote: post #512
creer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood. What's potentially more of a problem is the mention of artists using Midjourney and denied copyright - and very much separate cases from Thaler.

>Thaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood. This, it was a poorly concocted scheme. People do stuff like this all the time, but even when they manage to confuse one branch of the government, the rest of the government isn't suddenly obligated to go alon…

I don't feel that it was a misguided attempt to "get copyright". Wasn't the attempt specifically to get copyright attributed to the AI (rather than to Thaler)? So it was some grand scheme about AI personhood or business plan about selling software that would own its output. Who knows. Whatever. Not relevant to copyright for AI as a tool.

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

#518

Post by cogman10 »

dusted wrote: post #385

This is excellent news. I'm kind of surprised. I suppose it could also mean that anything else AI generated can't be copyrighted ? So corps generating code and content with AI hopefully can't copyright that? (of course they can, but just imagine the hilarity and panic that'd ensue!)

Would be pretty funny but practically I don't think it matters that much.

Someone could steal my company's entire codebase and, outside potential password leaks, it'd really have little impact on our business. The code itself is less valuable than the coders, the data, and the business connections we've made.

Certainly not the case for all software, but I'd wager 90% of the work HN does would fall into this category.

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

#519

Post by Riverheart »

wruza wrote: post #408
oytis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as it was a human that told the computer to make the image or wrote the code that allowed the computer to generate the image on its own, then the human is the author. The human would be the author of the prompt, but not the image IMO. The image was created not (only) by the author of the prompt, but also the numerous authors of the images consumed by the model and the authors of the model itself.

It was insipred by these authors, not created. I won’t claim where copyright/authorship should be, but this reduction makes less sense than needed for important definitions.

Software does not get inspired

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

#520

Post by Riverheart »

johnisgood wrote: post #471
silon42 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the prompt is more clearly copyrightable than the output image... which is also the derived work of all the training data.

I agree, but what if we account for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43345936 ? Mainly: > Humans derive their ideas from impressions (sensory experiences, or in terms of AI, the training model) and the ideas they form are essentially recombinations or refinements of those impressions. In this sense, human creativity can be viewed as a process of combining, transforming, and reinterpreting past experiences (impres…

Copyright is a human construct designed to benefit humans. It doesn’t matter if the process is the same. AI doesn’t need to put food on the table, doesn’t pay taxes, and will never die. There is no reason to treat it the same because it’s different in all other ways that matter in society.
Post reply on HN