3 ms·

Take a look at the decision: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-fil

Take a look at the decision: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... The person was still trying to get the AI marked as the owner. In fact in the application "does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author" which the office acceded to but did not actually agree or disagree with. So it still says nothing about whether a human can have copyright over a image they used an AI to make. It is another example that the AI itself having copyright is rejected.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
I feel like recent considerations on the need to be creative in producing prompts for AIs like Stable Diffusion to work on/with promotes the argument that a human is sufficiently involved in the process (some times!) to warrant a claim to ownership of the copyright. If they trained the AI then I think it would be a no-brainer in favour of the human being a creative input into the creation of the work. Just my personal opinion.
anigbrowl 4y ago
A distinction without a difference, since this was just someone who was hoping to be the beneficial owner of an AI with an enforceable copyright interest. Recall the failure of the photographer who allowed monkeys to play with his camera equipment, leading one of them to take a selfie photo that became famous. The photographer asserted copyright on the basis that he had brought his camera there, befriended the monkeys, and set his equipment up in such a way that even a monkey could use it and get a quality image, but his claim to authorship was rejected and so he was unable to realize any profit from selling the photo - although I'm sure he made it up on speaking tours telling the story of how he got it. To be sure, AI created art is done in response to a prompt provided by a human, but unless that human has done all the training and calculation of weights, they can't claim full ownership on the output from the model. There's a stronger case where a human supplies an image prompt and the textual input describes stylistic rather than structural content.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  "Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by the AI?" and "Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by a human?" and " Is an AI-created work copyright infringement?" are three separate questions. Just because the answer is no to the first doesn't mean the answer is no to the second, and the third is ever more distinct. That's why this is an open question educated lawyers make guesses about.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

I feel like recent considerations on the need to be creative in producing prompts for AIs like Stable Diffusion to work on/with promotes the argument that a human is sufficiently involved in the process (some times!) to warrant a claim to ownership of the copyright. If they trained the AI then I think it would be a no-brainer in favour of the human being a creative input into the creation of the work. Just my personal opinion.

anigbrowl 4y ago

A distinction without a difference, since this was just someone who was hoping to be the beneficial owner of an AI with an enforceable copyright interest. Recall the failure of the photographer who allowed monkeys to play with his camera equipment, leading one of them to take a selfie photo that became famous. The photographer asserted copyright on the basis that he had brought his camera there, befriended the monkeys, and set his equipment up in such a way that even a monkey could use it and get a quality image, but his claim to authorship was rejected and so he was unable to realize any profit from selling the photo - although I'm sure he made it up on speaking tours telling the story of how he got it. To be sure, AI created art is done in response to a prompt provided by a human, but unless that human has done all the training and calculation of weights, they can't claim full ownership on the output from the model. There's a stronger case where a human supplies an image prompt and the textual input describes stylistic rather than structural content.

iudqnolq 4y ago
"Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by the AI?" and "Is an AI-created work copyrighted and owned by a human?" and " Is an AI-created work copyright infringement?" are three separate questions. Just because the answer is no to the first doesn't mean the answer is no to the second, and the third is ever more distinct. That's why this is an open question educated lawyers make guesses about.