3 ms·

You can’t copyright AI-created art, according to US officials

7 points by chippy 5y ago

robbedpeter 5y ago
This is stupidity. The software used to produce these works does, in fact, require "intervention or creative input from a human author" through prompts, iterative selection, parameter tuning, and not least, creation and execution of the software itself. Generative software is a tool, like a hammer or paintbrush. The output does not magically appear without human intervention. The quality of output also improves with skill and creativity in a demonstrable and clear way. There are actual artists using this tool to great effect. This frames the problem in such a way that it would be reasonable to say that art produced with photoshop cannot be copyrighted, especially using generative brushes, predictive fill, or anything else that algorithmically modifies pixels. Absurd take by an ignorant bureacracy.
- Justin_K 5y ago
  Did you read the article. The debate is whether the software can be the copyright or if it has to be a person / artist that stands behind the work.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Did you read the article? It's actually apparent that you didn't even read the first paragraph. >>The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to copyright a work of art that was created by an artificial intelligence system. Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright a piece of art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming in a second request for reconsideration of a 2019 ruling that the USCO's “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional. Dr. Thaler tried to copyright a work under his name, and they ruled that generative software produced images can't be copyrighted. They fundamentally misunderstood what the software does.
    - yorwba 5y ago
      You may have read the article, but you failed to understand it. > Thaler applied to register the work as "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.” That's his shtick. He disclaims any involvement in the creation of the work, other than "hiring" the AI to create it for him, and then pretends to be offended when people draw the conclusion that he doesn't own the work because (according to him) it wasn't created by a human.
      - robbedpeter 5y ago
        Ahh, it's highly misleading. It's more akin to using photoshop and trying to assign copyright to the software, which is silly. Thanks for the clarification!
    - opo 5y ago
      Just a friendly note - both you, and the person you are responding too, are breaking the guidelines of this site: >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

7 points by chippy 5y ago

This is stupidity. The software used to produce these works does, in fact, require "intervention or creative input from a human author" through prompts, iterative selection, parameter tuning, and not least, creation and execution of the software itself. Generative software is a tool, like a hammer or paintbrush. The output does not magically appear without human intervention. The quality of output also improves with skill and creativity in a demonstrable and clear way. There are actual artists using this tool to great effect. This frames the problem in such a way that it would be reasonable to say that art produced with photoshop cannot be copyrighted, especially using generative brushes, predictive fill, or anything else that algorithmically modifies pixels. Absurd take by an ignorant bureacracy.

Justin_K 5y ago
Did you read the article. The debate is whether the software can be the copyright or if it has to be a person / artist that stands behind the work.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Did you read the article? It's actually apparent that you didn't even read the first paragraph. >>The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to copyright a work of art that was created by an artificial intelligence system. Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright a piece of art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming in a second request for reconsideration of a 2019 ruling that the USCO's “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional. Dr. Thaler tried to copyright a work under his name, and they ruled that generative software produced images can't be copyrighted. They fundamentally misunderstood what the software does.
  - yorwba 5y ago
    You may have read the article, but you failed to understand it. > Thaler applied to register the work as "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.” That's his shtick. He disclaims any involvement in the creation of the work, other than "hiring" the AI to create it for him, and then pretends to be offended when people draw the conclusion that he doesn't own the work because (according to him) it wasn't created by a human.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      Ahh, it's highly misleading. It's more akin to using photoshop and trying to assign copyright to the software, which is silly. Thanks for the clarification!
  - opo 5y ago
    Just a friendly note - both you, and the person you are responding too, are breaking the guidelines of this site: >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html