4 ms·

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic... In the US, AI generated art cannot be copyrighted. Edit: Some additional details. The US also denied a copyright for one where the creator listed themselves, with the AI just being a co-creator. https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_copyright_office_on_june_29_2022_rejected/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_co... (Original article is paywalled, reddit post contains the relevant bits) In particular: >“Even though you argue that there is some human creative input present in the work that is distinct from RAGHAV’s contribution, this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program,” the office stated. The US does seem to be a bit of an outlier here. The above work was granted copyright in Canada and India. In the EU, AI generated artwork is likely copyrightable: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 The same for the UK: https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/response-to-the-second-ai-consultation-status-quo https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/respon... Edit2: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, go contact one if you actually need legal advice here.

cal85 4y ago
That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art. It won’t be the same for every image involving AI in some way. What if you use AI to fill in a portion of an image, as with Adobe’s content aware fill? What if you use a series of SD steps but with a human selecting outputs and feeding them back in as inputs to get something else the AI could not have come up with on its own? The copyright conversation is only just beginning.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  >That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art "Because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the Work cannot be registered." The actual ruling (and a similar USPTO discussions) are about AI generated art and talk extensively about it in the broad case. The stance of these organizations is that AI generated art is not copyrightable. I don't disagree that the line is blurred when you discuss content aware fill, where the AI is working on a portion of it, but the current use of SD, even img2img and multiple prompts, etc., quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI... Might this change in the future? Possibly. But as it stands today, I would not make any plans that assume you can secure the copyright (in the US) to anything made with SD. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.
  - DougBTX 4y ago
    > quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. I think these are answering a slightly different question, as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. A bit like if someone tried to copyright an image and assign “Photoshop” as the author. The question above is maybe closer to asking if the person using an ML model can get copyright on the output, in that case there is a person trying to own the copyright, so I suspect it would not be rejected so easily.
    - cthalupa 4y ago
      >as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. Who is? The original question I replied to: >If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? This seems to be straightforward - Thaler tried to receive the copyright for the artwork generated by his Creativity Machine. He was denied, because the copyright office does not believe that a neural network generated image has human authorship. From the Copyright office paper: "he [Thaler] was “seeking to register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”" >A bit like if someone tried to copyright an image and assign “Photoshop” as the author. This is also clearly outside of the scope of copyrightable work per the reasoning given by the copyright office. Both questions are thoroughly answered at this moment unless Thaler wins his appeal. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.
      - DougBTX 4y ago
        > > as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. > Who is? Thaler is. I’ve only read the intro sections of the documents you linked to, so I may have missed something more fundamental later, but the key points seem to be: > The author of the Work was identified as the “Creativity Machine,” ... the Work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine” and: > Thaler must either provide evidence that the Work is the product of human authorship or convince the Office to depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence. He has done neither. So in this case they are asking if the AI can be the author. Whereas the question in this thread was: > If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? In that case, a human is providing a prompt to the model (providing creative input), and asking if they themselves count as the author (a human rather than a neural net), so it seems like a significantly different case.
holoduke 4y ago
What if I create a fully automated image site where people can purchase images. All the images are generated by SD based on keywords I scrape from competitor websites. Would be quite easy to create a website like that.

cal85 4y ago

That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art. It won’t be the same for every image involving AI in some way. What if you use AI to fill in a portion of an image, as with Adobe’s content aware fill? What if you use a series of SD steps but with a human selecting outputs and feeding them back in as inputs to get something else the AI could not have come up with on its own? The copyright conversation is only just beginning.

cthalupa 4y ago
>That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art "Because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the Work cannot be registered." The actual ruling (and a similar USPTO discussions) are about AI generated art and talk extensively about it in the broad case. The stance of these organizations is that AI generated art is not copyrightable. I don't disagree that the line is blurred when you discuss content aware fill, where the AI is working on a portion of it, but the current use of SD, even img2img and multiple prompts, etc., quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI... Might this change in the future? Possibly. But as it stands today, I would not make any plans that assume you can secure the copyright (in the US) to anything made with SD. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.
- DougBTX 4y ago
  > quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. I think these are answering a slightly different question, as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. A bit like if someone tried to copyright an image and assign “Photoshop” as the author. The question above is maybe closer to asking if the person using an ML model can get copyright on the output, in that case there is a person trying to own the copyright, so I suspect it would not be rejected so easily.
  - cthalupa 4y ago
    >as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. Who is? The original question I replied to: >If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? This seems to be straightforward - Thaler tried to receive the copyright for the artwork generated by his Creativity Machine. He was denied, because the copyright office does not believe that a neural network generated image has human authorship. From the Copyright office paper: "he [Thaler] was “seeking to register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”" >A bit like if someone tried to copyright an image and assign “Photoshop” as the author. This is also clearly outside of the scope of copyrightable work per the reasoning given by the copyright office. Both questions are thoroughly answered at this moment unless Thaler wins his appeal. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.
    - DougBTX 4y ago
      > > as they are asking if the AI itself can hold the copyright on the output. > Who is? Thaler is. I’ve only read the intro sections of the documents you linked to, so I may have missed something more fundamental later, but the key points seem to be: > The author of the Work was identified as the “Creativity Machine,” ... the Work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine” and: > Thaler must either provide evidence that the Work is the product of human authorship or convince the Office to depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence. He has done neither. So in this case they are asking if the AI can be the author. Whereas the question in this thread was: > If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? In that case, a human is providing a prompt to the model (providing creative input), and asking if they themselves count as the author (a human rather than a neural net), so it seems like a significantly different case.

holoduke 4y ago

What if I create a fully automated image site where people can purchase images. All the images are generated by SD based on keywords I scrape from competitor websites. Would be quite easy to create a website like that.