4 ms·

There's actually been some litigation around this topic recently. The general consensus seems to be that authorship gets assigned to closest version of the pers

by qchris 7y ago

There's actually been some litigation around this topic recently. The general consensus seems to be that authorship gets assigned to closest version of the person who initiated the creation process of the resulting artwork. So, in this case, I believe it would be the person that selected and uploaded the photo to the service would have authorship--the actual process is considered to be more of a blackbox tool being used by that person. A (way more) sophisticated digital paintbrush, if you will.

dylan604 7y ago
Wouldn't this be similar to using Photoshop or any other image manipulation tool? Adobe does not get ownership of output of their software. Why would we think some random website offering image manipulation would be different? As you say, the software is just a tool in the image creation process.
- StrangeDoctor 7y ago
  what gets really messy is the training data. Renaissance paintings are (hopefully?) all public domain, but what would be the case if I used living artists' work, or the collection of disney cartoons?
  - johannes1234321 7y ago
    The pictures themselves are probably public domain, the photography of the picture however might be protected (photographer picked angle, lense, lightning, ...)
thatguy0900 7y ago
Presumably this chimp image wasn't his, so would the new picture be owned by him still?
ajmarcic 7y ago
Does anyone have cites on litigation specific to generative works? The nearest neighbor precedent I'm aware of is the dismissal of Authors Guild v Google
- qchris 7y ago
  I'm not sure about links directly to court cases, but here's a couple different general-consumption articles from the last few years that address this sort of thing. I'm hopeful I didn't convey that the consensus on the subject is particularly solid... [1] https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates-a-work-of-art-who-owns-the-rights-to-it/ https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates... [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-experts-grapple-copyright-when-it-comes-works-created-using https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-ex...
  - ajmarcic 7y ago
    Thanks for the links. I know little on the topic. It may be a while before a litigious content owner identifies their work as having contributed to another generated one. I have yet to see in-your-face examples being monetized. From a technical standpoint using copyrighted text to train a text translator is similar to using copyrighted movies to train a movie generator. Which of these are acceptable?

by qchris 7y ago

dylan604 7y ago

Wouldn't this be similar to using Photoshop or any other image manipulation tool? Adobe does not get ownership of output of their software. Why would we think some random website offering image manipulation would be different? As you say, the software is just a tool in the image creation process.

StrangeDoctor 7y ago
what gets really messy is the training data. Renaissance paintings are (hopefully?) all public domain, but what would be the case if I used living artists' work, or the collection of disney cartoons?
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  The pictures themselves are probably public domain, the photography of the picture however might be protected (photographer picked angle, lense, lightning, ...)

thatguy0900 7y ago

Presumably this chimp image wasn't his, so would the new picture be owned by him still?

ajmarcic 7y ago

Does anyone have cites on litigation specific to generative works? The nearest neighbor precedent I'm aware of is the dismissal of Authors Guild v Google

qchris 7y ago
I'm not sure about links directly to court cases, but here's a couple different general-consumption articles from the last few years that address this sort of thing. I'm hopeful I didn't convey that the consensus on the subject is particularly solid... [1] https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates-a-work-of-art-who-owns-the-rights-to-it/ https://qz.com/1054039/google-deepdream-art-if-an-ai-creates... [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-experts-grapple-copyright-when-it-comes-works-created-using https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3042811/legal-ex...
- ajmarcic 7y ago
  Thanks for the links. I know little on the topic. It may be a while before a litigious content owner identifies their work as having contributed to another generated one. I have yet to see in-your-face examples being monetized. From a technical standpoint using copyrighted text to train a text translator is similar to using copyrighted movies to train a movie generator. Which of these are acceptable?