5 ms·

That brings the question: in order for a work to be copyrighted, does a human need to put "some" effort into generating that work (prompt engineering, tweaking

That brings the question: in order for a work to be copyrighted, does a human need to put "some" effort into generating that work (prompt engineering, tweaking knobs, etc.) or does it suffice to click a "generate" button?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Clicking the shutter on the camera grants you copyright. As things stand, clicking a button is enough
- ape4 4y ago
  Of course, there is more to that than taking a photo. You have to be at the location. Aim at the subject. Possibly select other settings.
  - molotovh 4y ago
    There is more to taking a photo, yes, but not to claiming a copyright, at least not in the US. "Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who 'shoots' or 'takes' the photo." https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/ https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/ Let's say a photographer sets up his camera, aims it, composes it, focuses it, etc. But he decides the light isn't quite right yet, so he goes for lunch. While he is away, his assistant clicks the shutter on a whim, capturing more or less the exact image what the photographer intended to capture. The resulting photograph's copyright belongs to the assistant, not the photographer. This is in theory, of course. In practice, this would be difficult to prove, since the picture is likely to be on a roll of many other pictures for which the photographer does own the copyright. The assistant would need some definitive evidence that they clicked the shutter on that exact frame if they wanted credit for their work.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  To some degree this probably applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... And that might lead to an argument that if the human doesn't hold the copyright the AI does, but then you are back to square one because you need to be a legal entity to hold copyright.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Also EU makes this different. Just taking a generic image. As in one that many other people would take might not reach level of originality and thus not entail copyright.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    That seems like an easy place to introduce gatekeepers to allow some to keep copyright and disallow others based on political reasons
    - js8 4y ago
      The concept of property is in itself political, because some have it and some do not.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Intellectual proterty is political. If you have a patent, I cannotncreate the se thing even if I came up with the idea independantly and neber heard of you. You are using the power of the state to restrict my freedoms. Copyright is slightly different, but still
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Not to be too pedantic but wouldn't that fall under the questioner's definition of fiddling with knobs? I mean, if you have to point the camera, and set the fstop or set photo vs pano, or even just set the flash or what have you, aren't you kind of key to generating that image? (Even though you generated it with the press of the button.) I mean, if the human didn't point the camera and set the settings, it would be a different picture even if someone did push the button on a camera that was just sitting on a table say.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
Or even more generally, does blindfolded painting while drunk, half by accident, for 3 seconds count? How do deliberate and skillful does it have to be?
jacquesm 4y ago
Speculation: this will hinge on whether or not that input can be considered a copyrighted work by itself. A prompt may well be too short, and if someone else could come up with the identical prompt in a natural setting and generate the exact same output then I would lean towards 'no', if it takes who gives the prompt into account then the answer might be 'yes'.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

Clicking the shutter on the camera grants you copyright. As things stand, clicking a button is enough

ape4 4y ago
Of course, there is more to that than taking a photo. You have to be at the location. Aim at the subject. Possibly select other settings.
- molotovh 4y ago
  There is more to taking a photo, yes, but not to claiming a copyright, at least not in the US. "Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who 'shoots' or 'takes' the photo." https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/ https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/ Let's say a photographer sets up his camera, aims it, composes it, focuses it, etc. But he decides the light isn't quite right yet, so he goes for lunch. While he is away, his assistant clicks the shutter on a whim, capturing more or less the exact image what the photographer intended to capture. The resulting photograph's copyright belongs to the assistant, not the photographer. This is in theory, of course. In practice, this would be difficult to prove, since the picture is likely to be on a roll of many other pictures for which the photographer does own the copyright. The assistant would need some definitive evidence that they clicked the shutter on that exact frame if they wanted credit for their work.
jacquesm 4y ago
To some degree this probably applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... And that might lead to an argument that if the human doesn't hold the copyright the AI does, but then you are back to square one because you need to be a legal entity to hold copyright.
Ekaros 4y ago
Also EU makes this different. Just taking a generic image. As in one that many other people would take might not reach level of originality and thus not entail copyright.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  That seems like an easy place to introduce gatekeepers to allow some to keep copyright and disallow others based on political reasons
  - js8 4y ago
    The concept of property is in itself political, because some have it and some do not.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Intellectual proterty is political. If you have a patent, I cannotncreate the se thing even if I came up with the idea independantly and neber heard of you. You are using the power of the state to restrict my freedoms. Copyright is slightly different, but still
bilbo0s 4y ago
Not to be too pedantic but wouldn't that fall under the questioner's definition of fiddling with knobs? I mean, if you have to point the camera, and set the fstop or set photo vs pano, or even just set the flash or what have you, aren't you kind of key to generating that image? (Even though you generated it with the press of the button.) I mean, if the human didn't point the camera and set the settings, it would be a different picture even if someone did push the button on a camera that was just sitting on a table say.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

Or even more generally, does blindfolded painting while drunk, half by accident, for 3 seconds count? How do deliberate and skillful does it have to be?

jacquesm 4y ago

Speculation: this will hinge on whether or not that input can be considered a copyrighted work by itself. A prompt may well be too short, and if someone else could come up with the identical prompt in a natural setting and generate the exact same output then I would lean towards 'no', if it takes who gives the prompt into account then the answer might be 'yes'.