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

521–530 of 562 posts

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

#521

Post by SR2Z »

wooger wrote: post #492
mubou wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We've had removable lenses forever. Is it really an impossible engineering challenge to ship a phone with a low-profile swappable lens?

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

#522

Post by jachee »

jedberg wrote: post #208
jachee wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I prompt you to draw me a bird, I can’t claim copyright on the bird you draw. (At least not with a contract of some sort, of which you are party.)

But the LLM is a tool. If I use a set of colored pencils to draw you a bird, the pencil company doesn't own the copyright. I do. Because I used the tool.

Colored pencils don’t move themselves around the paper, and they’re not full of uncompensated training based on untold numbers of other artists’ work. They require full agency and imposition of your will. That’s why you get credit.

A photocopier is also a tool, but you won’t get credit for Xeroxing the Mona Lisa.

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

#523

Post by johnisgood »

Riverheart wrote: post #520
johnisgood wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So can I claim copyright for AI-generated art?

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

#524

Post by wruza »

Riverheart wrote: post #519
wruza wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now it does.

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

#525

Post by Gloomily3819 »

mikehearn wrote: post #43
wildzzz wrote: post #21

This 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…

Wait a minute. Don't wild life photographers own the copyright of their images if they set up cameras with motion-detection? Like a billion pictures of birds are taken this way.

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

#526

Post by Gloomily3819 »

tantalor wrote: post #92
mikehearn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

If I paint a digital painting, and then ask my friend to click the "save as" button, does he own the copyright? Or even better, what if the painting is auto-saved by the software?

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

#527

Post by paulddraper »

regulation_d wrote: post #90
bogwog wrote: post #19

I think that's a good ruling. Say I create a website that just sells AI generated logos. I set up some automation so I'm constantly generating millions of logos per day. I also have a bot that scrapes the web to try and find anyone using a logo similar to the ones on my website, and then send legal threats demanding payment for copying my artwork. I'm sure more imaginative scammers will find a way to copyright troll…

Copyright law: A reason that copyright trolls are less common than patent trolls is that under copyright law, works created independently are not infringing. In court, you might have to prove that you did actually create the thing independently, but I think most juries would be sympathetic to this case. "Oh, you think that the defendant combed through your giant library of millions of logos to find this one specific,…

+1

Copyrights are more about the process more than the product. This is why "clean-room" implementations do not violate copyright law.

Trademark is about commercial ambiguity.

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

#528

Post by dmwilcox »

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.

I carry a point and shoot for photographing my kids -- it's amazing. You can take it out without looking at it, turn it on, take a photo and turn it off and return it to your pocket in 10 seconds.

Also the sensor is 10x the size of my phones, the photos are printable (and don't look like mud when printed like many camera phone photos), and the battery last for months.

Maybe just get a point and shoot? I traded in an old DSLR for an OM tough camera and my kids even take photos with it (and get copyright! unlike AI lol)

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

#529

Post by autoexec »

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 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.

It's a shame there aren't more dedicated MP3 players really. Every so often I run into people looking for one and often their options are very limited. Just having the ability to listen to music without someone logging and/or tracking what you listen to, when, and how often is becoming harder to attain. It's also nice to have a dedicated player when you listen to music often because it saves your battery for other things.

Today there are still plenty of reasons for simple digital cameras and even film cameras. I certainly hope they continue to remain available, even if many people are happy using whatever their phones give them.

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

#530

Post by blahblahblah77 »

Create something through human intelligence something that took you man hours to create. Then have an opinion on something you know no one on earth could have invented without your efforts. That is the innovation of human experience. Art is nothing short of this.
Post reply on HN