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

531–540 of 562 posts

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

#531

Post by bluecalm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #404
bluecalm wrote: post #403

Isn't AI just a tool here like any other? Sounds very inconsistent to me. It would be better to narrow copyright protection but grant it more liberally imo. Non tech people deciding on tech cases. In the next episode we will get AI paintbrush smart enough to help you but dumb enough the court still let's you copyright your work. Top legal minds deciding if it's sufficiently dumb to meet arbitrary standard they came u…

> Isn't AI just a tool here like any other? In this case, no, because the human involved explicit sought a copyright registration listing the AI as the author, and claims that the work was entirely the product of the AI. (In point of fact, yes, the AI is a tool used by a human, and to the extent the work may be copyrightable, copyright should have been sought listing the human author; but that's not what happened, an…

My comment was in relation to the one about the monkey making a photo. You are right though, I haven't read the case and just relied on comments to assume the court rejected the copyright claim "because it was created by AI" which I now see is not what happened, thank you.

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

#532

Post by Jamietwatts »

If so how does original art go through this style of copyright, shouldn't this work for the original artist not the individuals that create or established a copyright piece of art? Could never add the same value on the eye let on what an artist can do with say a paintbrush

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

#533

Post by Riverheart »

johnisgood wrote: post #523
Riverheart wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why should you benefit over the people doing it the traditional way? What’s your argument for the government favoring the disruption of the art economy relied on by existing taxpayers? I have no reason to support your viewpoint solely for your benefit. The space for market competition is not infinite and crowded enough as is.

I made different life choices that leave me unable to create and rather than belittle the accumulated effort of those who did by feeding their work into a machine, writing a prompt and claiming the output for myself I choose to be satisfied with the fruits of my labor and place in the world. Basic golden rule stuff, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In short, my opinion is no, you shouldn’t. If you disagree that is unfortunate.

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

#534

Post by oytis »

wruza wrote: post #524
Riverheart wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software does not get inspired

Now it does.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

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

#535

Post by cgriswald »

andirk wrote: post #370
SoftTalker wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My employer asserts copyright over everything I produce. Yet I'm the one writing the code.

Yup. Because we agreed to that up front to "transfer ownership" or some jargon. Otherwise yes it is yours.

My understanding is that work done for an employer as part of your normal job duties is considered work for hire and your employer owns it.

Employers might also have you sign a contract to avoid legal questions about whether part of your work was in the scope of those duties.

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

#536

Post by wruza »

oytis wrote: post #534
wruza wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now it does.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

So what. Why do you think that determinism should play any role here?

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

#537

Post by Riverheart »

oytis wrote: post #534
wruza wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now it does.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

AI is always human until it isn’t. It’s not copyright infringement if the AI learned from input like a human but also it’s just a tool that can’t copyright its own output. It’s a moral imperative someone ought to make money off that /s

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

#538

Post by Riverheart »

wruza wrote: post #536
oytis wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inspiration implies some intrinsic creativity that gets an impulse from someone else's work, but is not determined by it. We don't know how creativity and inspiration works in humans, but we know for sure that response of a generative model is 100% determined by its weights, which in turn are determined by the data it consumed during training, and the prompt.

So what. Why do you think that determinism should play any role here?

2 + 2 = 4

Nothing inspired or creative about it. It comes out the same every time no matter who calculates it. That’s what people want to copyright except the first 2 is other people’s art and the second 2 are the weights.

Why do you think it doesn’t matter?

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

#539

Post by dcow »

iamacyborg wrote: post #487
dcow wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Companies and fans would commission art. Why would they when they’d have every right to take it for free? Creative endeavours would be absolutely stillborn if only people wealthy enough to practice their craft could pursue the thing

They don’t have a right to extract art from artists… commission means pay for a piece up front, not after the fact. And on top of that you can only make digital copies cheaply.

Again they would not be “stillborn”. We’ve figured out crowdsourcing and popularity-based compensation (YT, patreon, etc.). You are just making statements without backing them up with readonable arguments.

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

#540

Post by dcow »

Goronmon wrote: post #456
I-M-S wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We already have systems that work better. None of them depend on copyright. Crowdfunding [generally commissions], patreon-type platforms, sponsored content, live performances, etc etc etc.
Post reply on HN