autotldr@lemmings.world
on 19 Aug 2023 09:45
nextcollapse
This is the best summary I could come up with:
More than 100 days into the writers strike, fears have kept mounting over the possibility of studios deploying generative artificial intelligence to completely pen scripts.
The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI.
Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.
His complaint argued that the office’s refusal was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for judicial review of agency actions.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that it does so only after a human develops a “mental conception” of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds.
The original article contains 858 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 09:56
nextcollapse
That’s great! It means artists can continue to use AI art for projects they don’t intend to sell, and Hollywood, which already has too much power, still relies on others.
Artists can still make money and copyright their stuff. You just can’t use exclusively AI to create the images. Cleaning up an AI generated image count as artistic work. Color correct, add missing fingers, make the eyes point the same way, remove background monstrosities. It all adds up.
Unfortunately this also goes for Hollywood. They can generate the bulk of the work and have one guy do the editing and suddenly they own the edit.
The real losers in this are the people that generate images with no modifications and post it as is while pretending that they are doing art.
JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
on 19 Aug 2023 15:30
collapse
Yeah while this suit covers a very specific scenario, a large majority of AI driven content does have human interaction and does qualify for copyright.
Even just a draft, fed into an AI finishing system, has some human interaction. Nothing is going to stop the AI revolution.
Eheran@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 10:04
nextcollapse
What is the point? Just claim it was your idea. There is no way to prove either way (AI generated or human generated). Laws need to adapt to changes.
In practical terms? If you are going to generate content using AI either don’t say it was AI generated or lie about how much human involvement it had. Also you can’t use “this work was completely made by AI” as a hook.
Chozo@kbin.social
on 19 Aug 2023 10:19
nextcollapse
Don't post the entire article in the OP, please. You'll end up getting C&D's sent to your instance admins if publishers keep seeing this, because it's - ironically enough in this context - copyright infringement.
Just post a snippet to stay within fair use. Don't ruin Lemmy for all of us over something so silly.
Danc4498@lemmy.ml
on 19 Aug 2023 13:42
nextcollapse
Or, even better, use AI to generate a tldr.
LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 15:45
collapse
Isn’t that what the autotldr bot basically does?
Siliconic@discuss.online
on 19 Aug 2023 20:07
collapse
No, that’s not going to happen. It’s easier for people to read if they post the whole thing.
jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 10:27
nextcollapse
On one hand, great; will that extent to software development, architecture and other fields?
On the other hand, sounds like the first step to, when AI and androids reach self awareness and conscience, legally keep them enslaved.
chaogomu@kbin.social
on 19 Aug 2023 12:20
collapse
When an AI can make that argument for themselves, then the law can change, until then, a human must be part of the creative process to hold copyright.
A classic example is the monkey selfie. There's no copyright because there was no human involved in the creation of the selfie.
jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 16:44
collapse
Well, the opressed and enslaved usually has no say about changing the law.
chaogomu@kbin.social
on 19 Aug 2023 16:55
collapse
It's a good thing that AI isn't capable of being oppressed or enslaved. Because it's currently less AI and more, janky code that does a thing, and sometimes does it correctly.
jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 17:43
collapse
For now. 40 years ago, what it does now was impossible science fiction.
chaogomu@kbin.social
on 19 Aug 2023 17:55
collapse
And for the next 40 years it will likely remain science fiction.
So there's no point in fucking up all the case law for something that doesn't exist. Seriously, copyright needs to be cut down, not expanded further. It's already the life of the author plus 70 years. How does that even work? Copyright is meant to get humans to produce more creative works, so how the fuck does that work after death?
The answer is, corporations that don't die. They want more control, and want AI to make shit, so they don't have to pay real people to do it.
So no. No copyright for theoretical AI. no copyright for monkeys with names assigned by some third party. Just stop trying to expand copyright.
turkelton@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 12:33
nextcollapse
My 2c:
On projects over a certain revenue the AI could say how much it was influenced (trained on) by the respective copyrighted content and then royalties could go out to the people who own that content in percents.
My 4c:
There could be an intellectual property blockchain and everything that can be used to train an AI gets a token.
Again, I think all of this should only be mandatory for huge corporations, similar to how unreal engine is free under 1 million dollar earnings.
This could also be an interesting way to see how human made content makes its way through the “minds” of AIs.
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 12:44
nextcollapse
There could be an intellectual property blockchain
No.
Brokkr@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 12:54
nextcollapse
Copywrite law doesn’t distinguish based on the size of the corporation, and I don’t think it should.
Tigbitties@kbin.social
on 19 Aug 2023 19:56
collapse
"Yo, it's Ja Rule in the house! You know, AI-generated art is an interesting twist in the game. But when it comes to copyright, I gotta say, it's a bit of a gray area. I mean, can a machine really claim ownership, right? But then again, if a human's involved in training that AI, there might be some room to argue. At the end of the day, it's all about respecting the craft and the creators, whether they're human or machine. We'll see where the courts take us on this one!" - JaRuleGPT
TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 14:03
nextcollapse
As a person who creates both visual arts and music, though admittedly for my own enjoyment alone, I can’t bring myself to ever recognize any of the AI generated stuff as Art. None of it is any good if you look at it close. It’s wrong in every way. The machines were supposed to come for our jobs, but that was supposed to mean factory production and construction and shit.
Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 14:21
nextcollapse
Unfortunately at worst the machine will only improve to the point where it is unnoticable.
Its a program designed exactly to be bullied into place by humans, were just only halfway through the bullying and still coorp’s are pushing it like its done.
Eventually it’ll have to be accepted as just another tool by artists.
That being said I support copyright less than I do “AI rights” so I’d say this is an overall win
ineedaunion@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 14:57
nextcollapse
Fuck Corporate America and all it’s Bootlicking sellout enablers.
Gino_Pilotino667@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 15:03
nextcollapse
True! If u think, that something machine made could be Art should think about what art differentiate from kitsch.
demlet@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 15:06
nextcollapse
It’s not about being technically good or not for me, it’s a question of expression. A human can express internal thoughts and feelings. An AI, at least the ones we currently have, can only do an awkward imitation. There’s no intention or awareness.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 19 Aug 2023 15:52
collapse
I think it can be art in the same way as photography: In both cases, the human influence is far less intentional than things which start with a blank canvas, and the ease of creation means that most examples aren’t art, but there are a few where someone happened to use the fullest understanding of their technical skill to capture a moment and a sensation of value. I wouldn’t say all photography is art, but I wouldn’t say that no photography is art, and I think generative images are similar.
I support the idea of making it uncopywrightable. I think it is obviously dependent on so many creators that granting sole use to anyone seems inappropriate.
demlet@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:03
nextcollapse
Hmm, I think there can be a huge amount of intentionality behind photography. It’s really not about the representation, it’s about all the choices made. AI can represent a scene perfectly and still have no intentionality. Of course, at the extreme that gets us into thorny issues like solipsism. How can I know that anyone besides me has intentionality? Maybe everyone else is just a meat machine with no awareness at all. Or maybe everything at a certain complexity has intentionality…
severien@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:27
nextcollapse
The intentionality is provided as a prompt by the human author.
Yeah, that’s fair. It’s hard to pinpoint what feels lacking with it, but it does feel lacking somehow to me. I guess for me there’s probably a tipping point where it’s no longer human enough. Like, just telling an AI to make a candy forest isn’t enough. But that’s a straw man argument in a way. Of course someone could put a huge amount of effort into getting an AI to render exactly what they’re imagining. In the end, it could be seen as just another medium. I have no doubt people are going to find incredible ways of utilizing it.
Honestly… no. In practice it doesn’t work like that because while messing about and getting the AI got generate what you want you look at tons of adjacent stuff the AI comes up with which then influences what you want to see. And I bet that’s a thing that even the 4k nude stunning woman with (large breasts:1.6) faction experiences, it’s practically impossible to not enter a dialogue with the tool.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 20 Aug 2023 02:56
collapse
I’ve done a bit of image synthesis, and I think the notion that it’s without intentionality is a bit of a myth.
I wanted an image of a gorilla dressed in a polo shirt and khakis, so I prompted stable diffusion to generate some gorillas in a variety of poses, then drew a shirt on, which looked like an MS Paint drawing. Then, I ran it back through Stable Diffusion to make the crude shirt look photo realistic. I then cut the gorilla out and used it in a photo collage.
I’m not using this example to claim that I’ve performed art or demonstrated any skill, but the final image is definitely the intentional result of trying to take a very specific image in my head and put it on the screen.
I made a similar point in response to someone else in the thread. I agree. It’s a very interesting situation to ponder. In some ways it’s just another medium. The intentionality is in the people trying to produce what they’re imagining via the AI. I will be curious to see what sorts of things people come up with over time.
TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 16:12
collapse
Oh, I don’t even really care about the copyright thing. I just hate for a fucking robot to lay around in it’s pajamas drawing pictures while I trade 13 hours of every day to a factory for the privilege of sleeing under a roof with some food for my family and to get to lay around drawing pictures like an hour of my week. This is defined distopia.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net
on 20 Aug 2023 02:58
collapse
I’ve still got hope. I see a sharply growing awareness of what you’re point out, and I think even the billionaires are a little spooked right now.
As they should be! There’s a lot more of us, and we’re coming for their power!
rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
on 19 Aug 2023 15:18
nextcollapse
Most of the AI art is at the very least better than what the average human can make and often better than what professionals make
arf_arf@reddthat.com
on 19 Aug 2023 15:24
nextcollapse
If you had spent just a few minutes thinking about it, you’d have realised email jobs and creative jobs would be first on the automation chopping block.
A secretary used to schedule events and write invitations manually, now you have calendly and ChatGPT.
You used to need an HR professional to onboard new employees, now you can use on-demand courses through any of the million LMSs that exist.
Oh and there are already AI generative tools for those kinds of online courses.
Meanwhile, even the best robots move like geriatrics. We’re 100 years away from a robot that could do all that a construction worker does.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 15:33
collapse
I work for a company that is automating the onboarding process even more. You type in the name of the person being on boarded and it creates the software licenses, training programs, usernames, passwords, everything, including checklists, reminders, deadlines and recurring events and renewals, with AI language models picking whether the new hire is in marketing or sales or supply chain etc
nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 15:31
nextcollapse
So, as someone who doesn’t do visual art, mainly writing and music as hobbies, my opinion is if there is intent, ie from the prompt or there editorial process of tweaking the model, then there is at last an attempt by a human to convey a message through the piece.
Whether or not it has good composition, or achieves something that resonates with a human viewer is valid criticism, but I think irrelevant as to whether or not it is art or a piece of creative expression. If someone has bad technique and can’t really get their idea across well in a painting, is it no longer art? Is a painting made during a paint and sip where you’re coached through the painting not art because there is no intent? These are more to gauge what you mean by art than as gotcha questions.
skrttskrtt911@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 16:03
collapse
I would disagree that a prompt is sufficient to express human intent, specifically in writing. How many stories can you list that don’t follow the heroes journey vs the ones that do? The most important part of any writing is not the setting and overarching narrative, it’s the small choices the author made all along the way that make it truly human. AI can parrot those choices, but a human can’t get an AI to make truly new unique decisions with any amount of prompting.
On the subject of tweaking the model, that’s not really how AI models work. Users don’t edit the model and keep the prompt the same to try to get different outputs. The only interface exposed to users is the input.
severien@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:30
collapse
Author can define those small choices as part of the prompt.
skrttskrtt911@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 17:17
collapse
I’m talking about how the story is written. You literally can’t define all of those choices in a prompt, it’s a continuous series of many many choices all throughout the story
severien@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:56
collapse
Many/most of those small choices have no artistic value - it doesn’t matter if you choose to use “because” or “since” for example.
Providing critical artistic choices while letting AI to make the rest of simple dumb choices (like the example above) is IMHO still creating art.
Ataraxia@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:24
nextcollapse
As someone who creates a variety of art in pretty much any medium I find AI art to be something deep and subconscious in us. It taps into something we can’t reach unless on mind altering drugs.
I find it to be an amazing study of the human psyche. I have never been able to connect to most “art” especially any of the classical stuff, as well as most music. While people enjoy and even request certain pieces of art from me, all but sculpting leaves me disconnected from my work because what I visualize and what create aren’t thr same. AI art has that missing piece.
LemmynySnicket@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:50
nextcollapse
If you think art is at all dependent on each individual recognizing it as good, then I think you’ve completely missed the point of a lot of art. Most art only appeals to some.
TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Aug 2023 01:30
collapse
When I make art I make it for myself. I have no interest whatever if it anyone else feels one way about it. I talked with the robots. I didn’t like it. Felt dirty, cheap.
Most of what people generate with AI is shit because the people using it have no idea about art. When an actual artist picks up those tools you get quite different results.
The neat thing is that it doesn’t really matter what kind of artist you are. You don’t need to be a painter, a sculptor has just as trained eyes yet can prompt an oil painting. Heck I’d bet random musicians get significantly better results than the general population.
MargotRobbie@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 14:22
nextcollapse
Well, of course not, because since some diffusion generation are deterministic, that would mean that a specific set of parameters is now copyrighted, so nobody else gets to type in that particular set of numbers into the UI without paying the copyright holder, which of course makes no sense.
Same reason you can’t copyright, say, cooking recipe for a burger.
because since some diffusion generation are deterministic
You are generalizing and using the word “some” at the same time.
MargotRobbie@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 14:48
collapse
Yeah, because generation from “a” samplers are not deterministic I think… was trying to find the best way to word that.
Hey, I get to be lazy in my internet commenting too, OK?
BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:45
collapse
Ancestral samplers are deterministic btw, but I think because they build off of the previous step it’s more obvious when the determinism is broken by optimizations.
MargotRobbie@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 18:58
collapse
Interesting. My A1111 SD has been broken after I tried running XL so I haven’t touched it in a while. I’ll go test it sometimes after I reset it.
The only way to bring non-determinism into a computer is to collect physical noise, when you set a seed the computer generates a sequence of numbers (and thus noise) that is statistically indistinguishable from physical noise but actually deterministic. The ancestral samples just add more of that deterministic noise to things.
Of course the whole thing is rather moot because there’s arguments to be had that physics itself is deterministic. Use of physical noise in computers is pretty much limited to situations where you want to make it impossible to guess which seed was used and thus reconstruct the noise, or, differently put: In cryptography.
To make this tangible: Remember good ole SNES games and their “push start” screens? They’d compare when you pressed the button to when the system booted up, then use that value as a seed for all the randomness in the game. As a human it’s practically impossible to hit a particular seed but a computer playing an emulated SNES game can abuse such shenanigans, that’s relevant in the automated speed run community.
CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:57
collapse
Food and flavors aren’t copyrightable or patentable because of an explicit exclusion of them. It has nothing to do with “determinism”.
No. Recipes are not copyrightable because they’re largely functional things for instructing a process to create a food, which simply is not in the purview of copyright. Specific recipes could very well be patented, depending on the specifics. There are no “explicit exclusions” here.
emberwit@feddit.de
on 20 Aug 2023 08:14
nextcollapse
And still the list of ingredients and food preparation process will not be copyrighted, just the way the specific recipe is written. Anyone could write a simple rephrased version of that recipe which creates the same dish and sell it. Or sell the dish in their restaurant.
CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 16:15
collapse
I did some research, and you’re right. I guess I was mislead years ago when I “learned” this.
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Aug 2023 14:28
nextcollapse
So basically anything generated procedurally just lost its copyright protection because of this wacky definition of “mental conception.” Anyone with skill and talent can exert control over the output of an AI. Likewise, someone with no idea how to paint will not produce what they’re “mentally conceiving.”
mo_lave@reddthat.com
on 19 Aug 2023 14:39
collapse
That may be true if the LLMs are wholly-deterministic. Speaking of procedural generation, humans don’t take its outputs as-is and call it a product. As it is, it’s more like running an RNG while you specify the seed number.
Zardoz@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 14:36
nextcollapse
Hollywood will just do what they always do. Pour billions more into lobbying the government until they pass something that will allow certain exemptions.
dynamojoe@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:05
collapse
Sonny Bono 2.0
kool_newt@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 16:00
nextcollapse
The question seems to boil down to, should a person that triggers automation that generates output be considered the author of that output and deserve compensation for it?
Does a person who presses “Enter” on a computer deserve “compensation” for that?
freecandy@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:10
nextcollapse
Prompt engineering is becoming a desired skill🫠
Zeshade@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:26
nextcollapse
Yes, it’s a bit more than just hitting the ‘enter’ key.
But not as complicated as actually doing the work yourself. That’s the point. If you don’t create the work, it can’t be copyrighted.
Honestly I think this is a good compromise, and these companies are missing the point. Just use this technology to make more movies and TV shows. Stop milking the exact same movie for years.
Something from decades ago, where the actors and directors are all dead, shouldn’t be copyrighted. I think that’s too long anyway. It lets a few actors get a ton of money and stifles others. People want new shit anyway.
Why not just hire actors full time and make a new AI script every week? That’s essentially what TikTok is, some new dumb idea done over and over by different people.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 18:28
nextcollapse
AI has been great for dumb TikTok memes, but that’s where it should stay.
Regarding prompts and just hitting enter, I actually did quite a bit of work in a previous job that was pretty much just that. I’d set up the inputs, finagle the simulation, and come up with results. There’s some value in hitting enter, but it’s not in the actual execution. It’s in developing the input and interpreting the results. The raw product itself isn’t valuable – someone who knew nothing about the program could be instructed on what to enter and what buttons to press, and they’d create the exact same product.
I think what we’ll see is copyright for prompts and development, but not for the output it generates. Someone could make a living on selling AI prompts without ever executing any of them.
I’m curious how this ruling is going to affect the discussion of AI being trained on copyright material.
It’s like saying “My Google-fu is a desired skill”.
Errr, no.
Ataraxia@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:15
nextcollapse
If someone dumps paint on a surface and let’s gravity do the work it’s the same thing. If someone ties paint buckets to dogs and let’s them run it’s the same thing.
When all you do is initiate the process and let another force make the creation it shouldn’t be.
If your can’t replicate it yourself then it isn’t your work.
ikapoz@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 16:24
nextcollapse
By that logic photography is not your work either
Ataraxia@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 16:25
collapse
Depends. If you just let the camera swing and let it randomly shoot then it isn’t. If youre framing it and composing it that’s your work.
But no just putting a camera on a cat and letting it randomly take pics isn’t your work.
KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml
on 19 Aug 2023 16:32
nextcollapse
but what if that was the intent behind the artwork? if I want a series of random photos and say it’s an art piece from the pov of Spider-Man swinging around but the setup is just hanging a camera and letting it take pictures on its own as it swings, is that still copyrightable art? If so, is art all about the intent behind the process and the process itself doesn’t matter?
But it is more than simply pressing enter. It’s rare that a single prompt is going to produce the exact image you’re looking for, so there’s lots of editing, seeing the outcome, repeat. If the outcome is close enough, then further in painting can be used. By that point, there’s been quite a bit of human interaction in the creation.
CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:04
nextcollapse
This doesn’t mean artists or movie studios can’t make AI creations and sell them. It just means they can’t stop people from copying and distributing them.
If a well regarded artist uses generative AI to make art, then prints a single copy or a limited edition and signs them, they can sell them. Other people can copy it, but it won’t be the same. They won’t have the same value as the ones the artist produced, and they won’t be signed.
baked_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 17:24
nextcollapse
Nfts all over again
Zeshade@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 17:25
nextcollapse
Can they copy the artist’s ai generated art including the signature and sell that?
Kolanaki@yiffit.net
on 19 Aug 2023 17:37
nextcollapse
If they can’t copyright it, everyone can just copy their shit and it’s not considered theft. I could buy that single, unique print, copy it and sell it myself more than once and make more than the dude who generated it. And it would be legal since it’s public domain and not copyrighted. Would it be the same as the original? No. Do most people care about that? Also no.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
on 19 Aug 2023 17:39
nextcollapse
I believe this is wrong. They can’t copyright an AI-generated script, but the performance and film based on a script is copyrightable.
Think about this: can you copy and sell the Leonardo and Claire Danes Romeo and Juliet because Shakespeare’s work is in the public domain? No. You cannot.
mosiacmango@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 17:46
nextcollapse
The hollywood model is based on ownership of IP. Can you imagine if “Stranger things” was AI generated by Netflix, had a hit first season, then Disney released a second season with new actors? Meanwhile, CBS premieres “Stranger things : Miami?”
It would be a mess and put their entire business model into a tailspin.
This ruling may be the biggest bouy the writers have gotten so far in their strike.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
on 19 Aug 2023 17:49
nextcollapse
I think that in this scenario, Netflix could hold copyright over the idea and characters. Only the script would be out of reach. Lawyers would ensure that they hold onto the right bits to prevent this scenario.
If I asked AI to write a story for a child, the whole thing is up for grabs. If I give it characters with specific traits and a story arc, that would still be mine. Only what the AI filled in wouldn’t be protected.
ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
on 19 Aug 2023 18:13
collapse
And I’m sure that the government would grant copyright on the human-generated inputs to an imitative large language model so-called “AI.” Not sure it would be worth anything, though.
Hell, I would bet that one might be able to copyright the database that was fed to an LLM, as long as it was independently generated & created by a human and not just a hoovering of a bunch of other authors’ works.
The courts have this right, for sure. Presumably we can’t copyright the answer that comes out of a calculator when we hit the “=” button. But we can copyright all the formula manipulation and original thought that went into deciding which keys to press on the calculator, and possibly even the action of pressing the keys? Not sure on that last bit.
The “creation” is algorithmic, and just like the calculator’s output that cannot be copyrighted. That’s based on “facts” of the universe, not “creation.”
Is saying “i want a long form show about 80s teenagers in a small town, one of which has psychic powers, with an overarching dark force that opposes them” really going to be “creative” enough to protect a tv series worth of output?
I think that falls apart in the same way that setting up a security camera once and then walking away doesnt give you permanent copyright over whatever it captures. There isn’t enough humanity in the creation to count it as “uniquely human.” The court seems to agree.
Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 18:56
nextcollapse
Holmes is very episodic by nature, which lends itself well to this structure. Even the ones that aim for an overaching story lean heavily into the “mystery of the week” for story structure.
It probally would work for things like the above, but can you honestly see long form shows working in the same way?
People could pay the studios that made the version of the show they wanted most. Instead of having no choice but to buy from whoever paid the most in the collectable copyright trading card game.
Maybe I want the “Tron 3” Dreamworks would make, instead of Disney.
WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 18:11
nextcollapse
Actually, it has nothing to do with human creators at all. It means that AI can’t hold a copyright. But the person who wrote the article would have to actually be able to comprehend court documents to understand that, so here we are.
On the record designed by plaintiff from the outset of his application for copyright
registration, this case presents only the question of whether a work generated autonomously by a computer system is eligible for copyright. In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No.
Given that the work at issue did not give rise to a valid copyright upon its creation, plaintiff’s myriad theories for how ownership of such a copyright could have passed to him need
not be further addressed. Common law doctrines of property transfer cannot be implicated where no property right exists to transfer in the first instance. The work-for-hire provisions of the Copyright Act, too, presuppose that an interest exists to be claimed. … Here, the image autonomously generated by plaintiff’s computer system was never eligible for copyright, so none of the doctrines invoked by plaintiff conjure up a copyright over which ownership may be claimed.
The irony is palpable.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net
on 19 Aug 2023 17:34
nextcollapse
Should have figured this would be the judgment when that monkey took a selfie of itself and the ruling was that it was public domain because a human didn’t take the shot, and monkies don’t have rights.
Graylitic@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 17:50
nextcollapse
IP should be abolished anyways.
1ird@notyour.rodeo
on 19 Aug 2023 17:53
nextcollapse
What’s stopping someone from generating an AI script and then saying they wrote it and copyrighting it?
That would be a fraud on the copyright office. Nothing is “stopping” people from committing fraud other then it’s fraud and has legal repercussions if found out.
You don’t “copyright something”. You have a copyright on everything you create yourself by default and you don’t on things that are not copyrightable. You can not put a copyright on something not copyrightable.
In practice this means if someone else copies your script without your consent, you can then try to enforce your exclusive copyright by suing them for copyright infringement. Then you need to proof and convince the judge of the originality of the work and that you put in significant creative effort.
Ok. So, it seems as usual I have missed the point here. Thanks for clarifying. So the point I’m to take away from this is that AI can’t hold copyright over things they create? If the answer is “yes”, then I ask. Can a human hold copyright over something an AI creates?
I am not a lawyer but the first question is probably a yes. AI is software and software does and can not hold any rights by itself as of today. The second question is what this post is about and the judge in the article said no, a human or company does not hold copyright over something AI creates.
That does not mean, that anything touched by or created with the use of AI is not copyrightable. If you have your movie script error checked or rephrased with an AI tool it’s still your movie script with your orignal ideas in it.
When they try to enforce the copyright against an alleged infringer, the infringer may claim the holder committed a fraud on the office and there is in fact no enforceable copyright. No one really knows how this would pan out in litigation because it’s untread territory.
Some AI work is created with a simple prompt, but the best stuff uses lots of in painting and out painting and adjustments. That would be copyrightable, there’s lots of human control beyond a prompt, there are lots of cool videos of the process on YouTube. By the time AI will be able to generate full processes, videos, storylines, voices, etc, without human intervention, we won’t need the movie studios either. I’m hoping we reach that in 3 years.
jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org
on 19 Aug 2023 18:57
nextcollapse
This doesn’t change much because of a simple difference: This was an AI product put in wholesale.
There was no human intervention in (visually) creating this product, thus no human can claim copyright.
Studios aren’t gonna do this when replacing some of their writers, because AI may not be good enough yet. Instead, it’ll be a smaller team, they’ll do the edits, and they can claim copyright.
This only really matters If AI advances to the point where we can completely create a full movie or TV show from scratch with just purely prompting, which, currently, we can not.
The thing is there was uncountable amout of people intervention. AI art is derivative work achieved via mathematical means.
jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org
on 19 Aug 2023 19:55
nextcollapse
Not in the copyright sense.
Yes, there were millions of people’s work that was in the training data that was used to make whatever AI program created those AI images, but (at least right now) that isn’t considered for legal ownership.
The US Copyright Office is taking the stance that there must be human effort that can be seen/pointed to in the final product directly in order to count as an “Author”.
Think about that guy with the monkey taking a photo, and how that got into the public domain. Just because the company selling the camera “created the camera used to take the photo” (made the AI model) or because someone using the camera “set their own settings for the photo to be its best quality” (typed in a proper prompt for the model) doesn’t mean that either party “owns” that image.
That whole paradigm could maybe change if/when AI LLM programs get seriously regulated, but even so, I personally don’t think that changes the chain of ownership, nor should it.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 22:03
nextcollapse
So it’s the same as when the film industry got started?
The element of human creativity derives from the Constitution.
“To promote art the author has the exclusive right.” Something like that.
Pr0phet@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 21:48
nextcollapse
By that logic, all human art is derivative work achieved via biological means. No artist works in a vacuum. Everything an artist sees subtly influences their style.
A spoof of Seinfeld runs 24/7 from only AI input after the initial prompt. It is bad, but exists. Depending on your quality standards, we are there. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing,_Forever
glassware@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 07:32
collapse
Having tried to do something similar, “Nothing, Forever” must have some pretty serious coding to engineer the prompts and reconstruct tiny snippets of AI generated dialogue into a full meaningful script. I wonder if that’s enough for the creators to claim copyright.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 22:02
collapse
That’s what I see likely. Writers will eventually use this as a tool. Say setup a scene and generate 40 versions. Pick the best one, edit it, feed back what you improved, generate another 40…
We are still reading Shakespeare and I think part of the reason was how he wrote those plays.
Write the scene, pass to actors, actors have notes, rewrite scene, pass to actors, have actors act out scenes, make changes, run changes by actors, rewrite scene, perform scene, watch audiences (are they laughing at the jokes? Are they sad when they are supposed to be sad?), make edits,…
He did it like a collaborative activity and gradual refinement. Almost none of his plays have an official indisputable version, instead we have multiple versions with slight differences.
Stop worrying about your jobs writers, this is a tool. Use it.
themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 02:45
collapse
It’s only a tool for lazy, shot by, hack writers. Like the writers for Big Bang or any kids show by Disney.
Why would a real writer need AI to steal words from others? Do you think Neil Gaimon needs help from a shitty program to write? Or any other high caliber writer? No. Because AI is for untalented artists and writers. They are the ones getting terrified that it might replace them.
Which speaks to their skillsets.
randon31415@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 20:26
nextcollapse
Hope: AI gets so good that people using a personal computer can produce full TV series with a single prompt, delare it uncopyrightable, and share the best results online as a alternative to corporate stuff.
Fear: IP law becomes so disconnected from the current situation that it prompts governments start over from scratch. New IP law is written by the corporations for the corporations, and any form of creativity is restricted and monetized.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 21:56
collapse
It sorta already happens. No one owns the copywrite to vampires hence all the stuff that is only slightly above fanfics becoming big. You are welcome to hate on Twilight but you can’t deny it’s popularity.
Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 20:33
nextcollapse
So does a prompt not count as human input
Edit: ok so if i train a style lora based on my own style and then prompt the ai to generate artwork , then I still don’t deserve the copyright? What if I do all that and then do touchups by hand is that somehow different? I find all this stuff so silly tbh but it is interesting to discuss.
Apollo@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Aug 2023 20:56
nextcollapse
If you hire someone and tell them “paint my room orange”, did you paint the room orange?
Wouldn’t that logic give the camera people and editors the copyrights in film?
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 19 Aug 2023 22:01
collapse
Funny that. In fact, they should totally have credit, but our copyright laws are so weighted for the property owners (rather than creators) that crediting has to be negotiated in a contract, and Hollywood lawyers are infamous for using loopholes and confusing language to remove credit and payment obligations.
To be fair copyright is fucked up, and you don’t have to create something to own its rights. For example, most of the music you listen to isn’t owned by the artists but the labels, and the artists only get paid if they’re super popular, like Madonna or Metallica or Ye. (Which means if you pirate something as an alternative to paying for it you’re denying profits to the labels, but not failing to support the artists. If you want to support an artist, go to a concert and buy one of their official t-shirts.)
So I don’t think this ruling is going to slow things down. The bare minimum Hollywood studios have to do is pass AI art / copy / whatever through an editor who changes a small portion, and lo! I human made this! Then it’ll go back to the courts, and they’ll see it’s ridiculous. (Mark Isham – I think that’s the guy – has been tinkering with procedural music for eons, so there’s counter precedent.)
squaresinger@feddit.de
on 19 Aug 2023 21:56
collapse
Weirdly enough, it might.
I mean, sure, an orange room doesn’t qualify for copyright.
But if you instruct helpers to help you make a copyrightable work to your specifications (e.g. architects instructing workers to build the building), then you own the copyright.
It all comes down to who had what part of the creative process.
For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.
I am also pretty sure I retain the copyright if I let an AI fix my spelling in a story I wrote.
But if my input is negligable (“Write me a short story.”), I definitely don’t have the copyright.
Copyright law is complicated and there’s never a clear general answer.
Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 22:16
collapse
“For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.”
There are tools that allow you to convert a stick figure drawing plus a prompt into whatever you want. I can draw a stick figure holding a circle and prompt it as a bunny holding an apple and I could get the desired output. Of course thats more than increasing resolution but where do we draw the line.
squaresinger@feddit.de
on 20 Aug 2023 07:10
nextcollapse
That’s what I said, yeah.
The line is probably drawn where it is drawn when using any other tool: For your contribution to be copyright-worthy it needs to be above the required threshold of originality. Copyright doesn’t distinguish between different tools you use, it just requires you to have put enough creativity into it for it to be a creative work.
AI in this respect is very close to photography.
Just pulling out your phone and snapping a picture of something does not clear the theshold, so you have no copyright over it, no matter how detailled the picture is.
If you set up the scene and put a lot of creative input into preparation and post-processing of the picture, you will clear that threshold and you will have copyright over it.
If this sounds arbitrary and hard to pinpoint whether that threshold (which is not clearly defined anywhere) is cleared, you are totally right. This is a big issue with the copyright system, but it’s also nothing that will be fixed by some people commenting on the internet.
So the question is “Did the human input into the AI tool clear the thresold or not?”
This question is the same, regardless of what tools are used, and it’s a common part of lawsuits concerning copyright. There is no blanket answer and it needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis. That’s how copyright law works.
audaxdreik@pawb.social
on 19 Aug 2023 21:46
collapse
No.
If I’m sitting on the couch and I want sushi, I can open up a website, pick exactly what I want, even maybe make a few substitutions for me specificity, and get it delivered right to my house, but that doesn’t mean I made sushi. I just HAVE sushi.
Anyone who has ever actually supported a real artist and commissioned work understands that they don’t own the copyright, unless extra agreements have been made to transfer it. It still belongs to the original artist.
And as stated, AI can’t own that. So no one does. Who would want to? It’s garbled, derivative work and anyone with access to the same prompt and models could generate it themselves, which is why I find the prompt guarding so hilarious. It’s all so blatantly dumb and transparent.
Set_secret@sopuli.xyz
on 19 Aug 2023 21:04
nextcollapse
seems a pretty easy solution here. just say you’ve written it… no reliable software exists for proving text is AI generated.
nucleative@lemmy.world
on 19 Aug 2023 21:23
nextcollapse
Doing that under oath is a crime, so those claiming copyright and their employees would be taking a lot of risk of eventually being discovered.
crapwittyname@lemm.ee
on 19 Aug 2023 22:19
nextcollapse
“Need to get away with murder? Easy! Just say ‘it wasn’t me, it must of been someone else who done it’. For bonus points, combine with a wink to the hot judge/juror of your choice.”
azurekevin@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 23:06
collapse
This limitation is too easy to get around.
Have AI generate a picture. Take a photo of that picture and destroy the original. Copyright is now owned by the photographer.
Have an AI write some music, change one note of that music and call in your arrangement of that piece, destroy the original music, and only your arrangement that you have a copyright on exists.
etc.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Aug 2023 16:53
collapse
As a photographer that knows copyright law, I assure you flat-art copying a work of art does not make it yours.
jayrodtheoldbod@midwest.social
on 20 Aug 2023 21:36
nextcollapse
The thing I’m seeing that does sort of skirt the issue is that it’s very obvious a lot of YouTubers have jumped on AI image generation to produce static images instead of drawing the images themselves or farming it out to an artist on Fiverr or something. So if they want “evil Jerome Powell with flames in his eyes” they hand it to the AI, it spits something out, and into the video it goes, to be published on YouTube as a memey splash image in the video.
Now that it’s in the video, along with all the other clear acts of human creativity that form a video, it’s sort of “washed” in the money laundering sense, and I don’t see how you legally separate that image from the video in a way that makes the image ineligible for copyright. I don’t see a court being flummoxed by that, at all. If you filch the image from the original video, or try to pull excerpts from the video featuring Evil JPow, you’re in violation of copyright, and we’re on pretty solid, well established legal ground with that. At the very least, you are not completely in the clear to just yank that image for yourself.
So while the original raw image of Evil Jpow that the AI spit out was not eligible for copyright by itself, now it is as part of a larger work, open and shut.
Near the end of the article it affirms pretty much that, saying, "An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” [as quoted from the copyright office]
My quote is a bit messy there (i’m quoting the article who is quoting the copyright office) but you get the point.
The raw AI output, assuming no human was involved, cannot be copyrighted, but as soon as the AI output is somehow arranged into a larger work by a human, that changes everything.
So yeah, a bit of arranging, some editing, and the completely AI generated footage can be copyrighted all day. At the very least there would be a court case there.
azurekevin@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 23:04
collapse
“evil Jerome Powell with flames in his eyes” Maverick of Wall Street? lmao
If a human uses AI to create a story and then edits and tells it in greater detail the new work would be copyrighted via the editor’s transformative act. This ruling is not a win for the WGA or other creatives that don’t want to use AI.
AI will just become our ghost writer, which is a practice as old as writing.
spiderkle@lemmy.ca
on 20 Aug 2023 18:40
nextcollapse
so stuff made with adobe sensei will not be admissable. plugins too? Don’t think they did their homework. AI is a tool like any other that will still need a person for imput.
MNByChoice@midwest.social
on 20 Aug 2023 23:55
collapse
In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.
I am not a lawyer, but Adobe Sensei is likely fine.
Talk about an inaccurate headline. The conclusion here isn’t that AI art can’t be copyrighted, it’s that AI cannot be a copyright holder. But it’s AI, so we can’t actually expect anyone to pull their head out of their ass and give it enough thought to write an article that isn’t garbage.
Instead we have yet another thread about this case in which no one actually has any idea what the ruling was. Very informative.
Cybersteel@lemmy.world
on 20 Aug 2023 23:25
nextcollapse
What if a monkey made art, would that be copyrightable?
MNByChoice@midwest.social
on 20 Aug 2023 23:53
collapse
No. That is in the article.
In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds. Howell cited the ruling in her decision. “Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a non-human,” the order, which granted summary judgment in favor of the copyright office, stated.
Both parties have now moved for summary judgment, which motions present the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement should be eligible for copyright. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 16; Defs.’ Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 17. For the reasons explained below, defendants are correct that human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim, and therefore plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment is denied and defendants’ pending
cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
AI being the copyright holder was never even in question. Some guy tried to register AI art in his company’s name, using the AI as the author of a work for hire. The Court found that he couldn’t get the copyright as a work for hire since no copyright existed in the first place.
HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
on 20 Aug 2023 23:02
nextcollapse
You didn’t create it so why the hell should you be able to copyright it?
ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev
on 21 Aug 2023 02:27
collapse
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
More than 100 days into the writers strike, fears have kept mounting over the possibility of studios deploying generative artificial intelligence to completely pen scripts.
The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI.
Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.
His complaint argued that the office’s refusal was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for judicial review of agency actions.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that it does so only after a human develops a “mental conception” of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds.
The original article contains 858 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That’s great! It means artists can continue to use AI art for projects they don’t intend to sell, and Hollywood, which already has too much power, still relies on others.
Artists can still make money and copyright their stuff. You just can’t use exclusively AI to create the images. Cleaning up an AI generated image count as artistic work. Color correct, add missing fingers, make the eyes point the same way, remove background monstrosities. It all adds up.
Unfortunately this also goes for Hollywood. They can generate the bulk of the work and have one guy do the editing and suddenly they own the edit.
The real losers in this are the people that generate images with no modifications and post it as is while pretending that they are doing art.
Yeah while this suit covers a very specific scenario, a large majority of AI driven content does have human interaction and does qualify for copyright.
Even just a draft, fed into an AI finishing system, has some human interaction. Nothing is going to stop the AI revolution.
What is the point? Just claim it was your idea. There is no way to prove either way (AI generated or human generated). Laws need to adapt to changes.
In practical terms? If you are going to generate content using AI either don’t say it was AI generated or lie about how much human involvement it had. Also you can’t use “this work was completely made by AI” as a hook.
Don't post the entire article in the OP, please. You'll end up getting C&D's sent to your instance admins if publishers keep seeing this, because it's - ironically enough in this context - copyright infringement.
Just post a snippet to stay within fair use. Don't ruin Lemmy for all of us over something so silly.
Or, even better, use AI to generate a tldr.
Isn’t that what the autotldr bot basically does?
Exactly
No, that’s not going to happen. It’s easier for people to read if they post the whole thing.
On one hand, great; will that extent to software development, architecture and other fields?
On the other hand, sounds like the first step to, when AI and androids reach self awareness and conscience, legally keep them enslaved.
When an AI can make that argument for themselves, then the law can change, until then, a human must be part of the creative process to hold copyright.
A classic example is the monkey selfie. There's no copyright because there was no human involved in the creation of the selfie.
Well, the opressed and enslaved usually has no say about changing the law.
It's a good thing that AI isn't capable of being oppressed or enslaved. Because it's currently less AI and more, janky code that does a thing, and sometimes does it correctly.
For now. 40 years ago, what it does now was impossible science fiction.
And for the next 40 years it will likely remain science fiction.
So there's no point in fucking up all the case law for something that doesn't exist. Seriously, copyright needs to be cut down, not expanded further. It's already the life of the author plus 70 years. How does that even work? Copyright is meant to get humans to produce more creative works, so how the fuck does that work after death?
The answer is, corporations that don't die. They want more control, and want AI to make shit, so they don't have to pay real people to do it.
So no. No copyright for theoretical AI. no copyright for monkeys with names assigned by some third party. Just stop trying to expand copyright.
My 2c:
On projects over a certain revenue the AI could say how much it was influenced (trained on) by the respective copyrighted content and then royalties could go out to the people who own that content in percents.
My 4c:
There could be an intellectual property blockchain and everything that can be used to train an AI gets a token.
Again, I think all of this should only be mandatory for huge corporations, similar to how unreal engine is free under 1 million dollar earnings.
This could also be an interesting way to see how human made content makes its way through the “minds” of AIs.
No.
Copywrite law doesn’t distinguish based on the size of the corporation, and I don’t think it should.
That would probably be picocents per artist. How do you want to transfer that amount of money?
So, if I use AI, then tweak it in photoshop, is us human created and now able to be copyrighted?
Basically it’s how already works with cameras. Subjects and composition are enough to copyright images. Even without post-processing
I tried to reach out to Allen Iverson for a comment, but he just kept ranting about practice.
But what did Ja say? Anyone get a hold of him?
"Yo, it's Ja Rule in the house! You know, AI-generated art is an interesting twist in the game. But when it comes to copyright, I gotta say, it's a bit of a gray area. I mean, can a machine really claim ownership, right? But then again, if a human's involved in training that AI, there might be some room to argue. At the end of the day, it's all about respecting the craft and the creators, whether they're human or machine. We'll see where the courts take us on this one!" - JaRuleGPT
As a person who creates both visual arts and music, though admittedly for my own enjoyment alone, I can’t bring myself to ever recognize any of the AI generated stuff as Art. None of it is any good if you look at it close. It’s wrong in every way. The machines were supposed to come for our jobs, but that was supposed to mean factory production and construction and shit.
Unfortunately at worst the machine will only improve to the point where it is unnoticable.
Its a program designed exactly to be bullied into place by humans, were just only halfway through the bullying and still coorp’s are pushing it like its done.
Eventually it’ll have to be accepted as just another tool by artists.
That being said I support copyright less than I do “AI rights” so I’d say this is an overall win
Fuck Corporate America and all it’s Bootlicking sellout enablers.
True! If u think, that something machine made could be Art should think about what art differentiate from kitsch.
It’s not about being technically good or not for me, it’s a question of expression. A human can express internal thoughts and feelings. An AI, at least the ones we currently have, can only do an awkward imitation. There’s no intention or awareness.
I think it can be art in the same way as photography: In both cases, the human influence is far less intentional than things which start with a blank canvas, and the ease of creation means that most examples aren’t art, but there are a few where someone happened to use the fullest understanding of their technical skill to capture a moment and a sensation of value. I wouldn’t say all photography is art, but I wouldn’t say that no photography is art, and I think generative images are similar.
I support the idea of making it uncopywrightable. I think it is obviously dependent on so many creators that granting sole use to anyone seems inappropriate.
Hmm, I think there can be a huge amount of intentionality behind photography. It’s really not about the representation, it’s about all the choices made. AI can represent a scene perfectly and still have no intentionality. Of course, at the extreme that gets us into thorny issues like solipsism. How can I know that anyone besides me has intentionality? Maybe everyone else is just a meat machine with no awareness at all. Or maybe everything at a certain complexity has intentionality…
The intentionality is provided as a prompt by the human author.
Yeah, that’s fair. It’s hard to pinpoint what feels lacking with it, but it does feel lacking somehow to me. I guess for me there’s probably a tipping point where it’s no longer human enough. Like, just telling an AI to make a candy forest isn’t enough. But that’s a straw man argument in a way. Of course someone could put a huge amount of effort into getting an AI to render exactly what they’re imagining. In the end, it could be seen as just another medium. I have no doubt people are going to find incredible ways of utilizing it.
Honestly… no. In practice it doesn’t work like that because while messing about and getting the AI got generate what you want you look at tons of adjacent stuff the AI comes up with which then influences what you want to see. And I bet that’s a thing that even the
4k nude stunning woman with (large breasts:1.6)faction experiences, it’s practically impossible to not enter a dialogue with the tool.I’ve done a bit of image synthesis, and I think the notion that it’s without intentionality is a bit of a myth.
I wanted an image of a gorilla dressed in a polo shirt and khakis, so I prompted stable diffusion to generate some gorillas in a variety of poses, then drew a shirt on, which looked like an MS Paint drawing. Then, I ran it back through Stable Diffusion to make the crude shirt look photo realistic. I then cut the gorilla out and used it in a photo collage.
I’m not using this example to claim that I’ve performed art or demonstrated any skill, but the final image is definitely the intentional result of trying to take a very specific image in my head and put it on the screen.
I made a similar point in response to someone else in the thread. I agree. It’s a very interesting situation to ponder. In some ways it’s just another medium. The intentionality is in the people trying to produce what they’re imagining via the AI. I will be curious to see what sorts of things people come up with over time.
Oh, I don’t even really care about the copyright thing. I just hate for a fucking robot to lay around in it’s pajamas drawing pictures while I trade 13 hours of every day to a factory for the privilege of sleeing under a roof with some food for my family and to get to lay around drawing pictures like an hour of my week. This is defined distopia.
I’ve still got hope. I see a sharply growing awareness of what you’re point out, and I think even the billionaires are a little spooked right now.
As they should be! There’s a lot more of us, and we’re coming for their power!
Most of the AI art is at the very least better than what the average human can make and often better than what professionals make
If you had spent just a few minutes thinking about it, you’d have realised email jobs and creative jobs would be first on the automation chopping block.
A secretary used to schedule events and write invitations manually, now you have calendly and ChatGPT.
You used to need an HR professional to onboard new employees, now you can use on-demand courses through any of the million LMSs that exist.
Oh and there are already AI generative tools for those kinds of online courses.
Meanwhile, even the best robots move like geriatrics. We’re 100 years away from a robot that could do all that a construction worker does.
I work for a company that is automating the onboarding process even more. You type in the name of the person being on boarded and it creates the software licenses, training programs, usernames, passwords, everything, including checklists, reminders, deadlines and recurring events and renewals, with AI language models picking whether the new hire is in marketing or sales or supply chain etc
So, as someone who doesn’t do visual art, mainly writing and music as hobbies, my opinion is if there is intent, ie from the prompt or there editorial process of tweaking the model, then there is at last an attempt by a human to convey a message through the piece.
Whether or not it has good composition, or achieves something that resonates with a human viewer is valid criticism, but I think irrelevant as to whether or not it is art or a piece of creative expression. If someone has bad technique and can’t really get their idea across well in a painting, is it no longer art? Is a painting made during a paint and sip where you’re coached through the painting not art because there is no intent? These are more to gauge what you mean by art than as gotcha questions.
I would disagree that a prompt is sufficient to express human intent, specifically in writing. How many stories can you list that don’t follow the heroes journey vs the ones that do? The most important part of any writing is not the setting and overarching narrative, it’s the small choices the author made all along the way that make it truly human. AI can parrot those choices, but a human can’t get an AI to make truly new unique decisions with any amount of prompting.
On the subject of tweaking the model, that’s not really how AI models work. Users don’t edit the model and keep the prompt the same to try to get different outputs. The only interface exposed to users is the input.
Author can define those small choices as part of the prompt.
I’m talking about how the story is written. You literally can’t define all of those choices in a prompt, it’s a continuous series of many many choices all throughout the story
Many/most of those small choices have no artistic value - it doesn’t matter if you choose to use “because” or “since” for example.
Providing critical artistic choices while letting AI to make the rest of simple dumb choices (like the example above) is IMHO still creating art.
As someone who creates a variety of art in pretty much any medium I find AI art to be something deep and subconscious in us. It taps into something we can’t reach unless on mind altering drugs. I find it to be an amazing study of the human psyche. I have never been able to connect to most “art” especially any of the classical stuff, as well as most music. While people enjoy and even request certain pieces of art from me, all but sculpting leaves me disconnected from my work because what I visualize and what create aren’t thr same. AI art has that missing piece.
If you think art is at all dependent on each individual recognizing it as good, then I think you’ve completely missed the point of a lot of art. Most art only appeals to some.
When I make art I make it for myself. I have no interest whatever if it anyone else feels one way about it. I talked with the robots. I didn’t like it. Felt dirty, cheap.
Most of what people generate with AI is shit because the people using it have no idea about art. When an actual artist picks up those tools you get quite different results.
The neat thing is that it doesn’t really matter what kind of artist you are. You don’t need to be a painter, a sculptor has just as trained eyes yet can prompt an oil painting. Heck I’d bet random musicians get significantly better results than the general population.
Well, of course not, because since some diffusion generation are deterministic, that would mean that a specific set of parameters is now copyrighted, so nobody else gets to type in that particular set of numbers into the UI without paying the copyright holder, which of course makes no sense.
Same reason you can’t copyright, say, cooking recipe for a burger.
You are generalizing and using the word “some” at the same time.
Yeah, because generation from “a” samplers are not deterministic I think… was trying to find the best way to word that.
Hey, I get to be lazy in my internet commenting too, OK?
Ancestral samplers are deterministic btw, but I think because they build off of the previous step it’s more obvious when the determinism is broken by optimizations.
Interesting. My A1111 SD has been broken after I tried running XL so I haven’t touched it in a while. I’ll go test it sometimes after I reset it.
The only way to bring non-determinism into a computer is to collect physical noise, when you set a seed the computer generates a sequence of numbers (and thus noise) that is statistically indistinguishable from physical noise but actually deterministic. The ancestral samples just add more of that deterministic noise to things.
Of course the whole thing is rather moot because there’s arguments to be had that physics itself is deterministic. Use of physical noise in computers is pretty much limited to situations where you want to make it impossible to guess which seed was used and thus reconstruct the noise, or, differently put: In cryptography.
To make this tangible: Remember good ole SNES games and their “push start” screens? They’d compare when you pressed the button to when the system booted up, then use that value as a seed for all the randomness in the game. As a human it’s practically impossible to hit a particular seed but a computer playing an emulated SNES game can abuse such shenanigans, that’s relevant in the automated speed run community.
Food and flavors aren’t copyrightable or patentable because of an explicit exclusion of them. It has nothing to do with “determinism”.No. Recipes are not copyrightable because they’re largely functional things for instructing a process to create a food, which simply is not in the purview of copyright. Specific recipes could very well be patented, depending on the specifics. There are no “explicit exclusions” here.
And still the list of ingredients and food preparation process will not be copyrighted, just the way the specific recipe is written. Anyone could write a simple rephrased version of that recipe which creates the same dish and sell it. Or sell the dish in their restaurant.
I did some research, and you’re right. I guess I was mislead years ago when I “learned” this.
So basically anything generated procedurally just lost its copyright protection because of this wacky definition of “mental conception.” Anyone with skill and talent can exert control over the output of an AI. Likewise, someone with no idea how to paint will not produce what they’re “mentally conceiving.”
That may be true if the LLMs are wholly-deterministic. Speaking of procedural generation, humans don’t take its outputs as-is and call it a product. As it is, it’s more like running an RNG while you specify the seed number.
Hollywood will just do what they always do. Pour billions more into lobbying the government until they pass something that will allow certain exemptions.
Sonny Bono 2.0
The question seems to boil down to, should a person that triggers automation that generates output be considered the author of that output and deserve compensation for it?
Does a person who presses “Enter” on a computer deserve “compensation” for that?
Prompt engineering is becoming a desired skill🫠
Yes, it’s a bit more than just hitting the ‘enter’ key.
But not as complicated as actually doing the work yourself. That’s the point. If you don’t create the work, it can’t be copyrighted.
Honestly I think this is a good compromise, and these companies are missing the point. Just use this technology to make more movies and TV shows. Stop milking the exact same movie for years.
Something from decades ago, where the actors and directors are all dead, shouldn’t be copyrighted. I think that’s too long anyway. It lets a few actors get a ton of money and stifles others. People want new shit anyway.
Why not just hire actors full time and make a new AI script every week? That’s essentially what TikTok is, some new dumb idea done over and over by different people.
AI has been great for dumb TikTok memes, but that’s where it should stay.
Regarding prompts and just hitting enter, I actually did quite a bit of work in a previous job that was pretty much just that. I’d set up the inputs, finagle the simulation, and come up with results. There’s some value in hitting enter, but it’s not in the actual execution. It’s in developing the input and interpreting the results. The raw product itself isn’t valuable – someone who knew nothing about the program could be instructed on what to enter and what buttons to press, and they’d create the exact same product.
I think what we’ll see is copyright for prompts and development, but not for the output it generates. Someone could make a living on selling AI prompts without ever executing any of them.
I’m curious how this ruling is going to affect the discussion of AI being trained on copyright material.
.
Ya, I have my doubts about that but I guess we’ll find out.
It’s like saying “My Google-fu is a desired skill”.
Errr, no.
If someone dumps paint on a surface and let’s gravity do the work it’s the same thing. If someone ties paint buckets to dogs and let’s them run it’s the same thing. When all you do is initiate the process and let another force make the creation it shouldn’t be. If your can’t replicate it yourself then it isn’t your work.
By that logic photography is not your work either
Depends. If you just let the camera swing and let it randomly shoot then it isn’t. If youre framing it and composing it that’s your work. But no just putting a camera on a cat and letting it randomly take pics isn’t your work.
but what if that was the intent behind the artwork? if I want a series of random photos and say it’s an art piece from the pov of Spider-Man swinging around but the setup is just hanging a camera and letting it take pictures on its own as it swings, is that still copyrightable art? If so, is art all about the intent behind the process and the process itself doesn’t matter?
The above commenter is factually correct. Quit downvoting him, you bandwagon-following dipshits!
Most art is created with tools. You can’t replicate yourself a photo you took (yourself meaning without the camera).
Um, paint pouring is a long-standing art form, so...not sure you're making a defensible argument here.
But it is more than simply pressing enter. It’s rare that a single prompt is going to produce the exact image you’re looking for, so there’s lots of editing, seeing the outcome, repeat. If the outcome is close enough, then further in painting can be used. By that point, there’s been quite a bit of human interaction in the creation.
This doesn’t mean artists or movie studios can’t make AI creations and sell them. It just means they can’t stop people from copying and distributing them.
If a well regarded artist uses generative AI to make art, then prints a single copy or a limited edition and signs them, they can sell them. Other people can copy it, but it won’t be the same. They won’t have the same value as the ones the artist produced, and they won’t be signed.
Nfts all over again
Can they copy the artist’s ai generated art including the signature and sell that?
artist’s or ai generated?
If they can’t copyright it, everyone can just copy their shit and it’s not considered theft. I could buy that single, unique print, copy it and sell it myself more than once and make more than the dude who generated it. And it would be legal since it’s public domain and not copyrighted. Would it be the same as the original? No. Do most people care about that? Also no.
ask richard stallman
Lol is that the NFT guy?
I believe this is wrong. They can’t copyright an AI-generated script, but the performance and film based on a script is copyrightable.
Think about this: can you copy and sell the Leonardo and Claire Danes Romeo and Juliet because Shakespeare’s work is in the public domain? No. You cannot.
The hollywood model is based on ownership of IP. Can you imagine if “Stranger things” was AI generated by Netflix, had a hit first season, then Disney released a second season with new actors? Meanwhile, CBS premieres “Stranger things : Miami?”
It would be a mess and put their entire business model into a tailspin.
This ruling may be the biggest bouy the writers have gotten so far in their strike.
I think that in this scenario, Netflix could hold copyright over the idea and characters. Only the script would be out of reach. Lawyers would ensure that they hold onto the right bits to prevent this scenario.
If I asked AI to write a story for a child, the whole thing is up for grabs. If I give it characters with specific traits and a story arc, that would still be mine. Only what the AI filled in wouldn’t be protected.
And I’m sure that the government would grant copyright on the human-generated inputs to an imitative large language model so-called “AI.” Not sure it would be worth anything, though.
Hell, I would bet that one might be able to copyright the database that was fed to an LLM, as long as it was independently generated & created by a human and not just a hoovering of a bunch of other authors’ works.
The courts have this right, for sure. Presumably we can’t copyright the answer that comes out of a calculator when we hit the “=” button. But we can copyright all the formula manipulation and original thought that went into deciding which keys to press on the calculator, and possibly even the action of pressing the keys? Not sure on that last bit.
The “creation” is algorithmic, and just like the calculator’s output that cannot be copyrighted. That’s based on “facts” of the universe, not “creation.”
Is saying “i want a long form show about 80s teenagers in a small town, one of which has psychic powers, with an overarching dark force that opposes them” really going to be “creative” enough to protect a tv series worth of output?
I think that falls apart in the same way that setting up a security camera once and then walking away doesnt give you permanent copyright over whatever it captures. There isn’t enough humanity in the creation to count it as “uniquely human.” The court seems to agree.
Seems to work fine with Sherlock Holmes
Holmes is very episodic by nature, which lends itself well to this structure. Even the ones that aim for an overaching story lean heavily into the “mystery of the week” for story structure.
It probally would work for things like the above, but can you honestly see long form shows working in the same way?
People could pay the studios that made the version of the show they wanted most. Instead of having no choice but to buy from whoever paid the most in the collectable copyright trading card game.
Maybe I want the “Tron 3” Dreamworks would make, instead of Disney.
Disney has spent a lot of time and money making sure that their characters can’t be used by anyone else, including extending copyright law each time the ‘steamboat willie’ version of Mickey Mouse would enter public domain.
I think they will care a lot that they can’t copyright ai-generated characters.
Actually, it has nothing to do with human creators at all. It means that AI can’t hold a copyright. But the person who wrote the article would have to actually be able to comprehend court documents to understand that, so here we are.
From the opinion:
The irony is palpable.
Should have figured this would be the judgment when that monkey took a selfie of itself and the ruling was that it was public domain because a human didn’t take the shot, and monkies don’t have rights.
IP should be abolished anyways.
What’s stopping someone from generating an AI script and then saying they wrote it and copyrighting it?
That would be a fraud on the copyright office. Nothing is “stopping” people from committing fraud other then it’s fraud and has legal repercussions if found out.
Like if AI generated it, who is going to complain if a human copyrights it?
This is what’s not computing in my head.
other humans perhabs
So say I create an AI that can generate movie scripts. I use it to create a script. I put my name on it and copyright it. How would anyone else know?
I’m not trying to be like, argumentative. I’m just trying to understand.
You don’t “copyright something”. You have a copyright on everything you create yourself by default and you don’t on things that are not copyrightable. You can not put a copyright on something not copyrightable.
In practice this means if someone else copies your script without your consent, you can then try to enforce your exclusive copyright by suing them for copyright infringement. Then you need to proof and convince the judge of the originality of the work and that you put in significant creative effort.
Ok. So, it seems as usual I have missed the point here. Thanks for clarifying. So the point I’m to take away from this is that AI can’t hold copyright over things they create? If the answer is “yes”, then I ask. Can a human hold copyright over something an AI creates?
I am not a lawyer but the first question is probably a yes. AI is software and software does and can not hold any rights by itself as of today. The second question is what this post is about and the judge in the article said no, a human or company does not hold copyright over something AI creates. That does not mean, that anything touched by or created with the use of AI is not copyrightable. If you have your movie script error checked or rephrased with an AI tool it’s still your movie script with your orignal ideas in it.
When they try to enforce the copyright against an alleged infringer, the infringer may claim the holder committed a fraud on the office and there is in fact no enforceable copyright. No one really knows how this would pan out in litigation because it’s untread territory.
Some AI work is created with a simple prompt, but the best stuff uses lots of in painting and out painting and adjustments. That would be copyrightable, there’s lots of human control beyond a prompt, there are lots of cool videos of the process on YouTube. By the time AI will be able to generate full processes, videos, storylines, voices, etc, without human intervention, we won’t need the movie studios either. I’m hoping we reach that in 3 years.
This doesn’t change much because of a simple difference: This was an AI product put in wholesale.
There was no human intervention in (visually) creating this product, thus no human can claim copyright.
Studios aren’t gonna do this when replacing some of their writers, because AI may not be good enough yet. Instead, it’ll be a smaller team, they’ll do the edits, and they can claim copyright.
This only really matters If AI advances to the point where we can completely create a full movie or TV show from scratch with just purely prompting, which, currently, we can not.
The thing is there was uncountable amout of people intervention. AI art is derivative work achieved via mathematical means.
Not in the copyright sense.
Yes, there were millions of people’s work that was in the training data that was used to make whatever AI program created those AI images, but (at least right now) that isn’t considered for legal ownership.
The US Copyright Office is taking the stance that there must be human effort that can be seen/pointed to in the final product directly in order to count as an “Author”.
Think about that guy with the monkey taking a photo, and how that got into the public domain. Just because the company selling the camera “created the camera used to take the photo” (made the AI model) or because someone using the camera “set their own settings for the photo to be its best quality” (typed in a proper prompt for the model) doesn’t mean that either party “owns” that image.
That whole paradigm could maybe change if/when AI LLM programs get seriously regulated, but even so, I personally don’t think that changes the chain of ownership, nor should it.
So it’s the same as when the film industry got started?
The element of human creativity derives from the Constitution.
“To promote art the author has the exclusive right.” Something like that.
By that logic, all human art is derivative work achieved via biological means. No artist works in a vacuum. Everything an artist sees subtly influences their style.
The work itself must be a product of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium.
The code that makes the art, the prompts, could be copyrighted. But not the output.
A spoof of Seinfeld runs 24/7 from only AI input after the initial prompt. It is bad, but exists. Depending on your quality standards, we are there. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing,_Forever
The rigging and models are copyrightable.
Having tried to do something similar, “Nothing, Forever” must have some pretty serious coding to engineer the prompts and reconstruct tiny snippets of AI generated dialogue into a full meaningful script. I wonder if that’s enough for the creators to claim copyright.
That’s what I see likely. Writers will eventually use this as a tool. Say setup a scene and generate 40 versions. Pick the best one, edit it, feed back what you improved, generate another 40…
We are still reading Shakespeare and I think part of the reason was how he wrote those plays.
Write the scene, pass to actors, actors have notes, rewrite scene, pass to actors, have actors act out scenes, make changes, run changes by actors, rewrite scene, perform scene, watch audiences (are they laughing at the jokes? Are they sad when they are supposed to be sad?), make edits,…
He did it like a collaborative activity and gradual refinement. Almost none of his plays have an official indisputable version, instead we have multiple versions with slight differences.
Stop worrying about your jobs writers, this is a tool. Use it.
It’s only a tool for lazy, shot by, hack writers. Like the writers for Big Bang or any kids show by Disney.
Why would a real writer need AI to steal words from others? Do you think Neil Gaimon needs help from a shitty program to write? Or any other high caliber writer? No. Because AI is for untalented artists and writers. They are the ones getting terrified that it might replace them.
Which speaks to their skillsets.
Hope: AI gets so good that people using a personal computer can produce full TV series with a single prompt, delare it uncopyrightable, and share the best results online as a alternative to corporate stuff.
Fear: IP law becomes so disconnected from the current situation that it prompts governments start over from scratch. New IP law is written by the corporations for the corporations, and any form of creativity is restricted and monetized.
It sorta already happens. No one owns the copywrite to vampires hence all the stuff that is only slightly above fanfics becoming big. You are welcome to hate on Twilight but you can’t deny it’s popularity.
So does a prompt not count as human input Edit: ok so if i train a style lora based on my own style and then prompt the ai to generate artwork , then I still don’t deserve the copyright? What if I do all that and then do touchups by hand is that somehow different? I find all this stuff so silly tbh but it is interesting to discuss.
If you hire someone and tell them “paint my room orange”, did you paint the room orange?
Wouldn’t that logic give the camera people and editors the copyrights in film?
Funny that. In fact, they should totally have credit, but our copyright laws are so weighted for the property owners (rather than creators) that crediting has to be negotiated in a contract, and Hollywood lawyers are infamous for using loopholes and confusing language to remove credit and payment obligations.
To be fair copyright is fucked up, and you don’t have to create something to own its rights. For example, most of the music you listen to isn’t owned by the artists but the labels, and the artists only get paid if they’re super popular, like Madonna or Metallica or Ye. (Which means if you pirate something as an alternative to paying for it you’re denying profits to the labels, but not failing to support the artists. If you want to support an artist, go to a concert and buy one of their official t-shirts.)
So I don’t think this ruling is going to slow things down. The bare minimum Hollywood studios have to do is pass AI art / copy / whatever through an editor who changes a small portion, and lo! I human made this! Then it’ll go back to the courts, and they’ll see it’s ridiculous. (Mark Isham – I think that’s the guy – has been tinkering with procedural music for eons, so there’s counter precedent.)
Weirdly enough, it might.
I mean, sure, an orange room doesn’t qualify for copyright.
But if you instruct helpers to help you make a copyrightable work to your specifications (e.g. architects instructing workers to build the building), then you own the copyright.
It all comes down to who had what part of the creative process.
For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.
I am also pretty sure I retain the copyright if I let an AI fix my spelling in a story I wrote.
But if my input is negligable (“Write me a short story.”), I definitely don’t have the copyright.
Copyright law is complicated and there’s never a clear general answer.
“For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.”
There are tools that allow you to convert a stick figure drawing plus a prompt into whatever you want. I can draw a stick figure holding a circle and prompt it as a bunny holding an apple and I could get the desired output. Of course thats more than increasing resolution but where do we draw the line.
That’s what I said, yeah.
The line is probably drawn where it is drawn when using any other tool: For your contribution to be copyright-worthy it needs to be above the required threshold of originality. Copyright doesn’t distinguish between different tools you use, it just requires you to have put enough creativity into it for it to be a creative work.
AI in this respect is very close to photography.
Just pulling out your phone and snapping a picture of something does not clear the theshold, so you have no copyright over it, no matter how detailled the picture is.
If you set up the scene and put a lot of creative input into preparation and post-processing of the picture, you will clear that threshold and you will have copyright over it.
If this sounds arbitrary and hard to pinpoint whether that threshold (which is not clearly defined anywhere) is cleared, you are totally right. This is a big issue with the copyright system, but it’s also nothing that will be fixed by some people commenting on the internet.
So the question is “Did the human input into the AI tool clear the thresold or not?”
This question is the same, regardless of what tools are used, and it’s a common part of lawsuits concerning copyright. There is no blanket answer and it needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis. That’s how copyright law works.
we let the AI draw it for us
No.
If I’m sitting on the couch and I want sushi, I can open up a website, pick exactly what I want, even maybe make a few substitutions for me specificity, and get it delivered right to my house, but that doesn’t mean I made sushi. I just HAVE sushi.
Anyone who has ever actually supported a real artist and commissioned work understands that they don’t own the copyright, unless extra agreements have been made to transfer it. It still belongs to the original artist.
And as stated, AI can’t own that. So no one does. Who would want to? It’s garbled, derivative work and anyone with access to the same prompt and models could generate it themselves, which is why I find the prompt guarding so hilarious. It’s all so blatantly dumb and transparent.
seems a pretty easy solution here. just say you’ve written it… no reliable software exists for proving text is AI generated.
Doing that under oath is a crime, so those claiming copyright and their employees would be taking a lot of risk of eventually being discovered.
“Need to get away with murder? Easy! Just say ‘it wasn’t me, it must of been someone else who done it’. For bonus points, combine with a wink to the hot judge/juror of your choice.”
Shaggy defense. It’s a real thing now: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_defense
Do you have to add “zoinks” at the end when you say it wasn’t me?
It’s not like that’s ever stopped any of them before.
I changed some words. Now it’s mine. I dunno, error, search and replace “Mike” to “Michael”.
The Judge is right. AI is not a living citizen.
couldn’t help but lol at this quote:
“To the times Disney pays people off enough…”
Oh it does adapt the time the copyright is valid.
This limitation is too easy to get around. Have AI generate a picture. Take a photo of that picture and destroy the original. Copyright is now owned by the photographer. Have an AI write some music, change one note of that music and call in your arrangement of that piece, destroy the original music, and only your arrangement that you have a copyright on exists. etc.
As a photographer that knows copyright law, I assure you flat-art copying a work of art does not make it yours.
The thing I’m seeing that does sort of skirt the issue is that it’s very obvious a lot of YouTubers have jumped on AI image generation to produce static images instead of drawing the images themselves or farming it out to an artist on Fiverr or something. So if they want “evil Jerome Powell with flames in his eyes” they hand it to the AI, it spits something out, and into the video it goes, to be published on YouTube as a memey splash image in the video.
Now that it’s in the video, along with all the other clear acts of human creativity that form a video, it’s sort of “washed” in the money laundering sense, and I don’t see how you legally separate that image from the video in a way that makes the image ineligible for copyright. I don’t see a court being flummoxed by that, at all. If you filch the image from the original video, or try to pull excerpts from the video featuring Evil JPow, you’re in violation of copyright, and we’re on pretty solid, well established legal ground with that. At the very least, you are not completely in the clear to just yank that image for yourself.
So while the original raw image of Evil Jpow that the AI spit out was not eligible for copyright by itself, now it is as part of a larger work, open and shut.
Near the end of the article it affirms pretty much that, saying, "An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” [as quoted from the copyright office]
My quote is a bit messy there (i’m quoting the article who is quoting the copyright office) but you get the point.
The raw AI output, assuming no human was involved, cannot be copyrighted, but as soon as the AI output is somehow arranged into a larger work by a human, that changes everything.
So yeah, a bit of arranging, some editing, and the completely AI generated footage can be copyrighted all day. At the very least there would be a court case there.
“evil Jerome Powell with flames in his eyes” Maverick of Wall Street? lmao
You own the copyright of your photo, AI flat art has no copyright, therefore the only copyright is yours.
When you copy a public domain work, you can copyright your original contributions.
So, for example, if you create a picture book of hamlet, you’d own the layout of the text on the page, but not the text of hamlet itself.
Good.
Give them time to lobby and get a friendlier judge and try again.
If a human uses AI to create a story and then edits and tells it in greater detail the new work would be copyrighted via the editor’s transformative act. This ruling is not a win for the WGA or other creatives that don’t want to use AI.
AI will just become our ghost writer, which is a practice as old as writing.
so stuff made with adobe sensei will not be admissable. plugins too? Don’t think they did their homework. AI is a tool like any other that will still need a person for imput.
I am not a lawyer, but Adobe Sensei is likely fine.
Talk about an inaccurate headline. The conclusion here isn’t that AI art can’t be copyrighted, it’s that AI cannot be a copyright holder. But it’s AI, so we can’t actually expect anyone to pull their head out of their ass and give it enough thought to write an article that isn’t garbage.
Instead we have yet another thread about this case in which no one actually has any idea what the ruling was. Very informative.
What if a monkey made art, would that be copyrightable?
No. That is in the article.
From the opinion;
AI being the copyright holder was never even in question. Some guy tried to register AI art in his company’s name, using the AI as the author of a work for hire. The Court found that he couldn’t get the copyright as a work for hire since no copyright existed in the first place.
You didn’t create it so why the hell should you be able to copyright it?
Squeeze and squeeze harder, WGA. They’ll crack.