5 ms·

Let's say that a human painter learned to paint by reproducing copyrighted works. Would the copyright owners have a claim on that painter's work after he finish

Let's say that a human painter learned to paint by reproducing copyrighted works. Would the copyright owners have a claim on that painter's work after he finished learning?

visarga 4y ago
Historically apprentices had to work for years in their master's shops, and their work was passed as belonging to their master.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  There's a couple of Mona Lisas. I think that these were done by Da Vinci's apprentices.
j-bos 4y ago
This argument has been feeling flat for a while (to me!) And now I think I can articulate why. This isn't a human, until the AI systems are granted personhood, this is a tool, regardless of how it works under the hood. So for me the question is, would the user (trainer) be allowed to view all the source material? Yes? Then would the user/trainer be allowed to produce content based off the source data? Seems like yes, as long as the actual minamally/unmodified sources are not "copied" into the model. Of course copyright is an abstract legal tool, so mo argumemt is worth anything until it's codified into law/precedent.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > This isn't a human This changes nothing related to copyright. Humans use tools all the time, and those tools aren't humans either. A camera isn't a human, for example, and yet it does a large amount of the work of making the photograph. In regards to copyright, no matter what tools you use to create art, what matters is the output. Drawn by a Human, created via a non-human such as either a camera or an AI, it is all the same.
  - vesinisa 4y ago
    Are you a copyright expert? This sounds counter realistic. By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Yet me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images simply because I can type keywords to cause image search to output them, no matter how creative or original keywords I use.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Good question. The difference is regarding the output not the input. Yes, if you output art, that looks exactly like some other art, then this could be a copyright violation. But that has nothing to do with a computer. Regardless, of if you copy someone else art, by right clicking it, AI generating it, or if a human entirely using their own paint and pencils, completely recreates it, this is all the same. The computer has nothing to do with it. Neither does the input. > no matter how creative or original keywords I use. Exactly. Regardless of the input, the input doesn't matter. That is why AI art is legal. Because the complaints are not about the output, but instead about the input. Yes, if you input other people's art, but the output is transformative, then that is legal. Same for if a human does it, or a computer, or anything else. Human input, vs computer input is the same thing, whereas the illegal stuff, is based if the output is infringing, regardless if it is made by a computer or a human. > By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool Yes, it is a tool. And just like any other tool, if it is a computer, or a human, it is the output that is judged. Same as if a human took a picture, or hand copied someone else's art. A human hand copying art, is just as legal or illegal, as if a computer does it. > me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images This is an unrelated topic. This is if the generation of new images, is copyrighted or not. That is different from if you are infringing on someone else's copyright. I was only talking about "if you are infringing on someone else" topic, not about the generation of new copyright, which yes, requires human input, as according to the "monkey selfie copyright" case.
      - 4y ago
LegitShady 4y ago
but they're not humans, so it doesn't matter.
vesinisa 4y ago
While the algorithm can simulate human learning, surely its outputs are not original copyrightable works. Originality seems to require human action by definition, and is what distinguishes inspired and copied works. If the outputs are not original, AFAIK they then must be derivative. Stable Diffusion could claim fair use exemption. But fair use too is just meant to protect creativity, again a manifestly manual activity. I don't know which way I lean, but I sure know the courts will soon have to make some very interesting rulings that will have monumental importance. Maybe A.I. generated "art" is an entirely new class of work and lawmakers just need to rethink copyright for them.

Let's say that a human painter learned to paint by reproducing copyrighted works. Would the copyright owners have a claim on that painter's work after he finished learning?

visarga 4y ago

Historically apprentices had to work for years in their master's shops, and their work was passed as belonging to their master.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
There's a couple of Mona Lisas. I think that these were done by Da Vinci's apprentices.

j-bos 4y ago

This argument has been feeling flat for a while (to me!) And now I think I can articulate why. This isn't a human, until the AI systems are granted personhood, this is a tool, regardless of how it works under the hood. So for me the question is, would the user (trainer) be allowed to view all the source material? Yes? Then would the user/trainer be allowed to produce content based off the source data? Seems like yes, as long as the actual minamally/unmodified sources are not "copied" into the model. Of course copyright is an abstract legal tool, so mo argumemt is worth anything until it's codified into law/precedent.

stale2002 4y ago
> This isn't a human This changes nothing related to copyright. Humans use tools all the time, and those tools aren't humans either. A camera isn't a human, for example, and yet it does a large amount of the work of making the photograph. In regards to copyright, no matter what tools you use to create art, what matters is the output. Drawn by a Human, created via a non-human such as either a camera or an AI, it is all the same.
- vesinisa 4y ago
  Are you a copyright expert? This sounds counter realistic. By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Yet me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images simply because I can type keywords to cause image search to output them, no matter how creative or original keywords I use.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Good question. The difference is regarding the output not the input. Yes, if you output art, that looks exactly like some other art, then this could be a copyright violation. But that has nothing to do with a computer. Regardless, of if you copy someone else art, by right clicking it, AI generating it, or if a human entirely using their own paint and pencils, completely recreates it, this is all the same. The computer has nothing to do with it. Neither does the input. > no matter how creative or original keywords I use. Exactly. Regardless of the input, the input doesn't matter. That is why AI art is legal. Because the complaints are not about the output, but instead about the input. Yes, if you input other people's art, but the output is transformative, then that is legal. Same for if a human does it, or a computer, or anything else. Human input, vs computer input is the same thing, whereas the illegal stuff, is based if the output is infringing, regardless if it is made by a computer or a human. > By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool Yes, it is a tool. And just like any other tool, if it is a computer, or a human, it is the output that is judged. Same as if a human took a picture, or hand copied someone else's art. A human hand copying art, is just as legal or illegal, as if a computer does it. > me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images This is an unrelated topic. This is if the generation of new images, is copyrighted or not. That is different from if you are infringing on someone else's copyright. I was only talking about "if you are infringing on someone else" topic, not about the generation of new copyright, which yes, requires human input, as according to the "monkey selfie copyright" case.
    - 4y ago

LegitShady 4y ago

but they're not humans, so it doesn't matter.

vesinisa 4y ago

While the algorithm can simulate human learning, surely its outputs are not original copyrightable works. Originality seems to require human action by definition, and is what distinguishes inspired and copied works. If the outputs are not original, AFAIK they then must be derivative. Stable Diffusion could claim fair use exemption. But fair use too is just meant to protect creativity, again a manifestly manual activity. I don't know which way I lean, but I sure know the courts will soon have to make some very interesting rulings that will have monumental importance. Maybe A.I. generated "art" is an entirely new class of work and lawmakers just need to rethink copyright for them.