4 ms·

Sell creators content to train DALL-E without consent. This is worse than just scraping without consent. After earning money to help train DALL-E, you earn agai

by fleddr 4y ago

Sell creators content to train DALL-E without consent. This is worse than just scraping without consent. After earning money to help train DALL-E, you earn again by selling the output of it. But no worries, an unknown part is shared with creators. Two revenue streams without consent but they still present themselves as the ethical AI company. And it's not even clear what a customer is buying. As far as I know, AI art can't be copyrighted.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lbotos 4y ago
> As far as I know, AI art can't be copyrighted. Why do you think that? There is a common article that gets passed around where a person tried to get copyright assigned to a machine and that keeps getting denied. That is very different from "AI generated images cannot be copyrighted". If I write a program to randomly generate an image of squares of different colors: - I, a human, can have copyright over the program text itself as a literary work - I, a human, can have copyright over the image output of the program
- archontes 4y ago
  I can't claim copyright on one of your works, because I'm not the author. I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author. AI created works, like animal-created works [2], lack authorship, and are thus not eligible for copyright at all. It's being litigated, and might change, but this is the current position of the US Copyright Office [1]. The only AI generated copyrighted work at the moment is a graphic novel, Zarya of the Dawn, and was granted a copyright as 'visual material', not 'visual arts work'. The most likely legal interpretation of which is that the author has added copyrightable material to non-copyrightable material, and obtained a copyright on the addition [3]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-try-to-get-his-ai-to-get-a-patent-or-copyright-loses-again-appeals-court-once-again-says-no/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
  - greysphere 4y ago
    >I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      Go read Title 17 of the United States Code. AI would be considered an anonymous author. You can't claim title to another authors anonymous work. If you claim I can own copyright for works created using my software algorithms, you would then be claiming that Adobe owns the works to all works created within their tools as long as those works did not have copyright claims made by the original author, which obviously Adobe doesn't own.
      - greysphere 4y ago
        Well, I'm fairly certain one can claim ownership of works they create via algorithms, as the entire digital media space wouldn't exist. I don't think authoring or hosting an algorithm gives one carte blanche ownership over things other people create with that algorithm, but cynically I could see that happening if enough money is involved unfortunately, but hopefully not. It's not clear at all why AI would ever be considered the author and in fact all the sources I've found assert the opposite, that AI cannot be considered an author. So I still haven't seen anything preventing people from claiming copyright protections on works they create via AI.
    - archontes 4y ago
      There is also this filing [1] from February regarding the "human authorship" requirement. Thaler was requesting that he be granted the copyright to this work as the AI was "work-for-hire". The Copyright Office found that Thaler “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work.” So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

by fleddr 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lbotos 4y ago

> As far as I know, AI art can't be copyrighted. Why do you think that? There is a common article that gets passed around where a person tried to get copyright assigned to a machine and that keeps getting denied. That is very different from "AI generated images cannot be copyrighted". If I write a program to randomly generate an image of squares of different colors: - I, a human, can have copyright over the program text itself as a literary work - I, a human, can have copyright over the image output of the program

archontes 4y ago
I can't claim copyright on one of your works, because I'm not the author. I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author. AI created works, like animal-created works [2], lack authorship, and are thus not eligible for copyright at all. It's being litigated, and might change, but this is the current position of the US Copyright Office [1]. The only AI generated copyrighted work at the moment is a graphic novel, Zarya of the Dawn, and was granted a copyright as 'visual material', not 'visual arts work'. The most likely legal interpretation of which is that the author has added copyrightable material to non-copyrightable material, and obtained a copyright on the addition [3]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-try-to-get-his-ai-to-get-a-patent-or-copyright-loses-again-appeals-court-once-again-says-no/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
- greysphere 4y ago
  >I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    Go read Title 17 of the United States Code. AI would be considered an anonymous author. You can't claim title to another authors anonymous work. If you claim I can own copyright for works created using my software algorithms, you would then be claiming that Adobe owns the works to all works created within their tools as long as those works did not have copyright claims made by the original author, which obviously Adobe doesn't own.
    - greysphere 4y ago
      Well, I'm fairly certain one can claim ownership of works they create via algorithms, as the entire digital media space wouldn't exist. I don't think authoring or hosting an algorithm gives one carte blanche ownership over things other people create with that algorithm, but cynically I could see that happening if enough money is involved unfortunately, but hopefully not. It's not clear at all why AI would ever be considered the author and in fact all the sources I've found assert the opposite, that AI cannot be considered an author. So I still haven't seen anything preventing people from claiming copyright protections on works they create via AI.
  - archontes 4y ago
    There is also this filing [1] from February regarding the "human authorship" requirement. Thaler was requesting that he be granted the copyright to this work as the AI was "work-for-hire". The Copyright Office found that Thaler “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work.” So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...