4 ms·
Adobe will sell AI-made stock images
- Spivak 4y agoThis is a non-story: "Artists will sell art made with new kind of paintbrush." > But AI is different because it was trained on other people's images Same as any other artist learning a breadth of styles from other people's works. > But it's copyright infringement Only if it's copyright infringement. If you use tool to make infringing image then it's infringing. Artists have been able to trace since the sun was invented. > But you might not know it's copyright infringement That's how it works when you buy art from anywhere. All you get is a statement from the artist or indemnification if you have a real real legal team. > But the artist themselves might not know Won't be the first or last time an artist has reproduced an work from a memory they thought was original. > But I think the model itself is infringing material Nobody knows that for sure. We'll see when it's tested in court.
- randombits0 4y agoIt’s either an infringement or it’s not copyrightable. Pick one. Only creative works are copyrightable.
- sereguze 4y agoWhy would it just be one of the first two options and never the 3rd option you presented?
- randombits0 4y agoOnly humans get copyrights.
- sereguze 4y agoa human used the tool
- randombits0 4y agoPoint to the creative expression fixed in a tangible media authored by a human. Do AI queries qualify as creative expression?
- sereguze 4y agoI’m playing a bit of devils advocate to see where you draw the line. For me personally I actually think nothing is creative enough to have the results owned or more to the point it’s not the effort that goes in but the literal act of creation is copying that makes something new property ie I’m against non contractual intellectual property altogether and so don’t need to draw a line based off of the action itself but instead ask what the people buying the art agreed to when they pay for an act of media creation. I’m not trying to convince you to adopt this position. I am just curious