5 ms·
Collage may be a better analogy than paint. An artist can make an image with a collage of bits of other artists' works, in much the same way that a generative
by mkl 6y ago
Collage may be a better analogy than paint. An artist can make an image with a collage of bits of other artists' works, in much the same way that a generative network can make an image out of image elements derived from other artists' works.
The question is not whether the "AI" has any ownership, but whether the original artists do, or whether the programmers do, or whether the people selecting training images do, or whether the person selecting a final artwork out of a mass of inferior generated images does.
- jxf 6y ago> An artist can make an image with a collage of bits of other artists' works, in much the same way that a generative network can make an image out of image elements derived from other artists' works. That's not a good analogy because a human is involved. The entire point here is whether living entities other than persons can have copyright, and the answer (in the US) is no.
- gfxgirl 6y agoThe AI didn't write itself. A human chose the algorithms, the training data, the goals, etc....
- visarga 6y agoApparently that's nothing. As if all this AI generative art is trivial.
- mkl 6y ago"living entities other than persons" having or not having copyright is unrelated, as programs are not living entities. Humans are definitely involved in developing, training, operating, and choosing output from machine learning art-generating systems.