3 ms·

I suppose the legal specifics are uncharted territory, but at least with DALL-E the operator explicitly claims ownership of all generated images. > 2. OpenAI o

I suppose the legal specifics are uncharted territory, but at least with DALL-E the operator explicitly claims ownership of all generated images. > 2. OpenAI owns generations created by DALL·E; you own your uploaded images. I suppose that could refer to ownership in some other sense besides copyright, though I don't know what that would mean.

zarzavat 4y ago
It’s uncharted territory but only somewhat, as it is generally accepted that the creators of a tool do not have any copyright claim to the works that users create with that tool. e.g. Adobe does not own the pictures you create with Photoshop or Illustrator. Even if Photoshop is filling in the pixels with content aware fill, Adobe doesn’t get any authorship rights to your works. As far as copyright is concerned, the author is the human in the loop making the creative decisions. For generated images, that is primarily the person writing the prompt, and secondarily the creators of the training set (the extent to which the authors of the training set hold copyright to derived works is a more interesting legal question). OpenAI are neither writing the prompt, nor did they create the images in the training set. So it I don’t see where their authorship claim is supposed to come from. They could ask for copyright assignment. I haven’t read the full terms of service so I don’t know if they require copyright assignment. But them merely asserting that they own the images is not a copyright assignment, “We own the images” is legally meaningless by itself - own what form of IP, through what mechanism?
- jfim 4y ago
  It could be argued either way, since in this case the tool does a lot more more than a content aware fill. If I were to ask you to draw a rabbit, you'd own the copyright on the picture despite me giving you the prompt. In the case where a neural net is given the prompt, who owns the copyright? The prompter, the neural net, or the creator of the neural net?
  - shakna 4y ago
    Commonly, the for-hire aspects of the copyright laws would come into play. If you have a prestanding relationship, and receive a benefit from the prompter, then the prompter is often the owner of the copyright in the US, despite not being the creator. A neural net's existence might be considered as a benefit in that case, so you don't need to dive into possible personship before establishing the owner.
shakna 4y ago
> I suppose the legal specifics are uncharted territory Depends entirely on where you live. [0] Whilst the attached case was rejected in the UK and US, Australia reached the conclusion that AI itself, not its creators, might have ownership over its production, as... Insane... As that is. (There's another High Court case to come. Hence the 'may' have ownership.) [0] https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0879 https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fc...

zarzavat 4y ago

It’s uncharted territory but only somewhat, as it is generally accepted that the creators of a tool do not have any copyright claim to the works that users create with that tool. e.g. Adobe does not own the pictures you create with Photoshop or Illustrator. Even if Photoshop is filling in the pixels with content aware fill, Adobe doesn’t get any authorship rights to your works. As far as copyright is concerned, the author is the human in the loop making the creative decisions. For generated images, that is primarily the person writing the prompt, and secondarily the creators of the training set (the extent to which the authors of the training set hold copyright to derived works is a more interesting legal question). OpenAI are neither writing the prompt, nor did they create the images in the training set. So it I don’t see where their authorship claim is supposed to come from. They could ask for copyright assignment. I haven’t read the full terms of service so I don’t know if they require copyright assignment. But them merely asserting that they own the images is not a copyright assignment, “We own the images” is legally meaningless by itself - own what form of IP, through what mechanism?

jfim 4y ago
It could be argued either way, since in this case the tool does a lot more more than a content aware fill. If I were to ask you to draw a rabbit, you'd own the copyright on the picture despite me giving you the prompt. In the case where a neural net is given the prompt, who owns the copyright? The prompter, the neural net, or the creator of the neural net?
- shakna 4y ago
  Commonly, the for-hire aspects of the copyright laws would come into play. If you have a prestanding relationship, and receive a benefit from the prompter, then the prompter is often the owner of the copyright in the US, despite not being the creator. A neural net's existence might be considered as a benefit in that case, so you don't need to dive into possible personship before establishing the owner.

shakna 4y ago

> I suppose the legal specifics are uncharted territory Depends entirely on where you live. [0] Whilst the attached case was rejected in the UK and US, Australia reached the conclusion that AI itself, not its creators, might have ownership over its production, as... Insane... As that is. (There's another High Court case to come. Hence the 'may' have ownership.) [0] https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0879 https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fc...