6 ms·

But it's not copyrightable. I guess you can lie and say you created it, but you didn't, and computer generated. You created it no more than you created your hou

But it's not copyrightable. I guess you can lie and say you created it, but you didn't, and computer generated. You created it no more than you created your house because you picked the layout and paint colors. There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images.

shadowgovt 4y ago
The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question. Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs. > There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images. I'm a game developer but not an artist. If a computer can generate the artwork for my game, I completely get to sidestep paying an artist for that work. That's huge value. I would pay a subscription service to a database of AI generated content even if it couldn't be copyrighted.
- chlorion 4y ago
  The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes. If you trained only on things that granted you permission to do so, or if you bought a bunch of art works to train on this would be really cool. I am interested in seeing how this turns out legally. Copyright law is intended to protect humans and their intellectual property, and these "AI" or "ML" systems are not humans, so I am not so confident that generating work from other peoples is going to be legal.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. I think this is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of any attempt to ban the sort of technology, because a system like stable diffusion is just a denoiser attached to an image fitness algorithm that has been trained on a bunch of input. And we certainly can't make training such algorithms illegal; if we do, YouTube loses the ability to police uploads to its site overnight because such image recognizers can also be used to detect likely instances of copyright infringement.
mring33621 4y ago
Bullshit. I made a new image using a computer program that I was legally licensed to use. The program might be Corel Draw. It might be Blah Blah Diffusion Pro Plus. Either way, I made the image and I own the copyright, unless some other contract was made between myself and the program's owner or my employer.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  A machine operator does not own the copyright on the parts his machine stamps out even though he puts in inputs. GM's engineers can own the copyright on a car they design in CAD. If you put in creative inputs using a tool, it is copyrightable (a car's design). If all you did was say, give my XYZ widget (in this case 'give me a picture of a frog holding an umbrella under a rainbow') you only gave instructions for generating a widget, you did not create art.
  - mring33621 4y ago
    If someone asks me to make/paint/draw a picture of a 'frog holding an umbrella under a rainbow', I would be basing my new work on all the 'art' and images that I have seen in the past. I might even search for related content on the internet for inspiration! So long as I don't copy a previous, copyrighted image 'too much' (this is fuzzy and maybe should be quantified legally in our bright, digital future), I can claim copyright on the new image. Since, so far, non-human things are not allowed to hold copyright, a human can claim copyright over works created by non-human things, that the human owns or controls. It's even easier to reason about if the human and non-human thing 'collaborate' on the final creative product. So, if I fiddle around with my inputs (prompts) into Super Diffusion Power Plus Gold Edition, then we (the software and I) collaborated. And I own the output that I chose (curated) as the best one.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Do you have citations for a ruling that AI generated art is not copyrightable? To my knowledge, such a ruling has not been made, so we can at best make wild guesses at what the courts will find. I don't think this particular wild guess is on the right track; the creative input given to the AI generator was the prompt. There is also an argument to be made that, in the same sense a photograph can be copyrighted even though it's just a single still image from a moment that occurred around it, an Ai-generated artwork can be copyrighted because the artist performed the creative act of retaining it. In essence, they pulled it from the soup of possible outputs and held it up as one worth noting, as a photographer pulls an image from the soup of possible moments and framings.
tiborsaas 4y ago
Of course it is. Following your logic no photograph can be copyrighted taken with a camera. After all, the subject already existed you've seen in your camera, you merely recorded the photons with a sensor, digital or analog, doesn't matter.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Your response lacks any merrit. The photographer framed the picture, chose the focus, etc. Artistic inputs, not simply 'give me a street scene'. More apt, a photographer can't claim as art a picture he googled with 'give me a street scene'. He was not an artistic creator in that case. Read Title 17 instead of pulling made up arguments out.
can16358p 4y ago
Assume a painter with a good visual memory observed many scenes around the world. They are very intellectual and know pretty much about anything regarding physical objects, shapes, and visual styles. Then they have the ability to draw very realistic scenes of whatever we ask them to do, in whatever style we want. We pay the person (or they might offer this as a courtest too), and they paint and give exactly what we want, with all the rights to sell the image. It's the same: the "someone" is replaced by a computer software that "learned" in a similar fashion, being able to draw what we ask them to draw. Unless it's directly sampling some copyrighted work as-is, whatever it creates can be copyrightable. Whether the painter allows this is another story.

shadowgovt 4y ago

The question of whether it's copyrightable is completely up in the air right now. To my mind, emitting it into the Creative Commons somewhat side steps the question. Besides, there's all sorts of use cases where copyright is less relevant. Advertising agencies care less if their artwork gets copied because it puts it in front of more eyeballs. > There is no money in non-copyrightable generated computer images. I'm a game developer but not an artist. If a computer can generate the artwork for my game, I completely get to sidestep paying an artist for that work. That's huge value. I would pay a subscription service to a database of AI generated content even if it couldn't be copyrighted.

chlorion 4y ago
The computer can generate artwork for your game, but only after training on other people's artwork that they spent effort and time creating. I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. You are basically side-stepping paying for artists by laundering their work in my eyes. If you trained only on things that granted you permission to do so, or if you bought a bunch of art works to train on this would be really cool. I am interested in seeing how this turns out legally. Copyright law is intended to protect humans and their intellectual property, and these "AI" or "ML" systems are not humans, so I am not so confident that generating work from other peoples is going to be legal.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > I think auto-generating art from other people's creations and hard work is wrong personally, unless they have specifically granted that permission when sharing their work. I think this is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of any attempt to ban the sort of technology, because a system like stable diffusion is just a denoiser attached to an image fitness algorithm that has been trained on a bunch of input. And we certainly can't make training such algorithms illegal; if we do, YouTube loses the ability to police uploads to its site overnight because such image recognizers can also be used to detect likely instances of copyright infringement.

mring33621 4y ago

Bullshit. I made a new image using a computer program that I was legally licensed to use. The program might be Corel Draw. It might be Blah Blah Diffusion Pro Plus. Either way, I made the image and I own the copyright, unless some other contract was made between myself and the program's owner or my employer.

ROTMetro 4y ago
A machine operator does not own the copyright on the parts his machine stamps out even though he puts in inputs. GM's engineers can own the copyright on a car they design in CAD. If you put in creative inputs using a tool, it is copyrightable (a car's design). If all you did was say, give my XYZ widget (in this case 'give me a picture of a frog holding an umbrella under a rainbow') you only gave instructions for generating a widget, you did not create art.
- mring33621 4y ago
  If someone asks me to make/paint/draw a picture of a 'frog holding an umbrella under a rainbow', I would be basing my new work on all the 'art' and images that I have seen in the past. I might even search for related content on the internet for inspiration! So long as I don't copy a previous, copyrighted image 'too much' (this is fuzzy and maybe should be quantified legally in our bright, digital future), I can claim copyright on the new image. Since, so far, non-human things are not allowed to hold copyright, a human can claim copyright over works created by non-human things, that the human owns or controls. It's even easier to reason about if the human and non-human thing 'collaborate' on the final creative product. So, if I fiddle around with my inputs (prompts) into Super Diffusion Power Plus Gold Edition, then we (the software and I) collaborated. And I own the output that I chose (curated) as the best one.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Do you have citations for a ruling that AI generated art is not copyrightable? To my knowledge, such a ruling has not been made, so we can at best make wild guesses at what the courts will find. I don't think this particular wild guess is on the right track; the creative input given to the AI generator was the prompt. There is also an argument to be made that, in the same sense a photograph can be copyrighted even though it's just a single still image from a moment that occurred around it, an Ai-generated artwork can be copyrighted because the artist performed the creative act of retaining it. In essence, they pulled it from the soup of possible outputs and held it up as one worth noting, as a photographer pulls an image from the soup of possible moments and framings.

tiborsaas 4y ago

Of course it is. Following your logic no photograph can be copyrighted taken with a camera. After all, the subject already existed you've seen in your camera, you merely recorded the photons with a sensor, digital or analog, doesn't matter.

ROTMetro 4y ago
Your response lacks any merrit. The photographer framed the picture, chose the focus, etc. Artistic inputs, not simply 'give me a street scene'. More apt, a photographer can't claim as art a picture he googled with 'give me a street scene'. He was not an artistic creator in that case. Read Title 17 instead of pulling made up arguments out.

can16358p 4y ago

Assume a painter with a good visual memory observed many scenes around the world. They are very intellectual and know pretty much about anything regarding physical objects, shapes, and visual styles. Then they have the ability to draw very realistic scenes of whatever we ask them to do, in whatever style we want. We pay the person (or they might offer this as a courtest too), and they paint and give exactly what we want, with all the rights to sell the image. It's the same: the "someone" is replaced by a computer software that "learned" in a similar fashion, being able to draw what we ask them to draw. Unless it's directly sampling some copyrighted work as-is, whatever it creates can be copyrightable. Whether the painter allows this is another story.