3 ms·

> Just because the image is publicly available doesn't mean it should have been copied. There is no "Should" that makes sense here either way. > Are the AI ge

> Just because the image is publicly available doesn't mean it should have been copied. There is no "Should" that makes sense here either way. > Are the AI generated images copyrighted? No, this is already established in the US. > Are they protected behind any form of paywall? You can if you want. > Are those using the images generated by the AI responsible for derived works? Derived works of the images? Like I generate a picture of a dog, and you draw a dick on it? Obviously not.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>> Are the AI generated images copyrighted? > No, this is already established in the US. The case you're likely thinking of [1] is not at all this case. Thaler tried to have the AI assigned the copyright, then transfer it to himself. USPTO denied that the AI could have the copyright, so it could not be transferred. This is completely the opposite of what this case is. He wanted AI to be the sole copyright holder, which the court ruled cannot be. Any creative human input to make the AI create the image (text prompts, post selection from among any images to find one that is good) is fully copyrightable by the person. The text that an artist uses and then selects final images from are both considered creative enough to make the final copyrightable, just as if they entered numbers into Photoshop tools to make an image the way they wanted it. Plenty of these are creative enough and take significant tweaking by the authors via the text they fiddle with to be copyrightable, the same as the text they created to generate the work. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  You've answered a different question. The work is copyrightable. It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    To >> Are the AI generated images copyrighted? you wrote > No, this is already established in the US. What cases are you then using to conclude this? >It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort I doubt de minimus applies, since the images coming out of this AI are no where near any originals that I've seen - they may similar style, but they're so completely different that they are almost all certainly copyrighted by the author. For example, the simplest, littlest effort to snap a picture gives it full copyright. This AI takes more work to use than snapping a picture. And de minimis would be on the infringer to prove - the owner still has a copyright until proven otherwise. So the images are most likely copyrighted. Anything copyrightable in the US is automatically copyrighted by default upon creation. It's why any photo taken is immediately copyrighted by the photographer. Any painting is automatically copyrighted by the painter. Any computer art is automatically copyrighted by the computer operator. I'd expect most of these works are copyrighted just as much as if someone painted them, or used blender to make them, or used a collage tool to merge self owned photos.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      If you take a picture with a camera, the picture is copyrightable. And yes, it applies automatically. But not all pictures that a camera takes are copyrighted. The same applies to AI generated content. To me asking if AI generated images are copyrighted implies the latter issue. If you're trying to answer a different question it's just an uninteresting semantic debate.
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        This AI, in this thread, is human operated. Those images are likely copyrighted. What case are you using to claim AI images are not copyrighted? The one I cited? Or another? The one I cited, the only one I can find, is not relevant here. Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim?
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > This AI, in this thread, is human operated. Those images are likely copyrighted. No, again. The AI can be human operated, and thus it can produce copyrightable works. But it can also be operated by other things, so it is not by default copyrighted. Your own case as well as the monkey selfie are just fine for this. > Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim? Our debate here is not defending premises with evidence, it's you not understanding what the premise is.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

>> Are the AI generated images copyrighted? > No, this is already established in the US. The case you're likely thinking of [1] is not at all this case. Thaler tried to have the AI assigned the copyright, then transfer it to himself. USPTO denied that the AI could have the copyright, so it could not be transferred. This is completely the opposite of what this case is. He wanted AI to be the sole copyright holder, which the court ruled cannot be. Any creative human input to make the AI create the image (text prompts, post selection from among any images to find one that is good) is fully copyrightable by the person. The text that an artist uses and then selects final images from are both considered creative enough to make the final copyrightable, just as if they entered numbers into Photoshop tools to make an image the way they wanted it. Plenty of these are creative enough and take significant tweaking by the authors via the text they fiddle with to be copyrightable, the same as the text they created to generate the work. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

spywaregorilla 4y ago
You've answered a different question. The work is copyrightable. It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  To >> Are the AI generated images copyrighted? you wrote > No, this is already established in the US. What cases are you then using to conclude this? >It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort I doubt de minimus applies, since the images coming out of this AI are no where near any originals that I've seen - they may similar style, but they're so completely different that they are almost all certainly copyrighted by the author. For example, the simplest, littlest effort to snap a picture gives it full copyright. This AI takes more work to use than snapping a picture. And de minimis would be on the infringer to prove - the owner still has a copyright until proven otherwise. So the images are most likely copyrighted. Anything copyrightable in the US is automatically copyrighted by default upon creation. It's why any photo taken is immediately copyrighted by the photographer. Any painting is automatically copyrighted by the painter. Any computer art is automatically copyrighted by the computer operator. I'd expect most of these works are copyrighted just as much as if someone painted them, or used blender to make them, or used a collage tool to merge self owned photos.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    If you take a picture with a camera, the picture is copyrightable. And yes, it applies automatically. But not all pictures that a camera takes are copyrighted. The same applies to AI generated content. To me asking if AI generated images are copyrighted implies the latter issue. If you're trying to answer a different question it's just an uninteresting semantic debate.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      This AI, in this thread, is human operated. Those images are likely copyrighted. What case are you using to claim AI images are not copyrighted? The one I cited? Or another? The one I cited, the only one I can find, is not relevant here. Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim?
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > This AI, in this thread, is human operated. Those images are likely copyrighted. No, again. The AI can be human operated, and thus it can produce copyrightable works. But it can also be operated by other things, so it is not by default copyrighted. Your own case as well as the monkey selfie are just fine for this. > Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim? Our debate here is not defending premises with evidence, it's you not understanding what the premise is.