6 ms·

That’s not really how it works. Copyright is less about process than result. For example, a human can—-completely from memory—-draw an entirely new image and it

That’s not really how it works. Copyright is less about process than result. For example, a human can—-completely from memory—-draw an entirely new image and it can be found to be infringing on an original. Similarly if I took someone else’s book and made a silent film adaptation of it. That is a derivative work, it won’t contain any of the literal words from the book or any words at all but if it contains a representation of the unique, identifiable characteristics of the underlying work it’s going to be considered a derivative (infringing) work. So many of these gotchas people talk about with AI are not nearly so simple.

realusername 4y ago
No that's the opposite, patents are about the result and copyright is about the process. If that would work like that, all those image boards like Getty themselves would never be able to exist since there's so many near identical images produced independently.
- Volundr 4y ago
  That's not true. If you patent the Microwave, I am free to heat my food in the oven. The result is the food is cooked, the method is different. The process is a key part of the patent. Edit: After gasp researching (which maybe we should all consider before commenting) you can patent one of 4 things, process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent) so process is definitely something you can patent, but is not necessarily required.
  - realusername 4y ago
    Yeah sure, to be more precise, to be a copyright derivative, the creation process must be examined, there's no way around it. You can totally create very similar artworks which don't share a copyright.
wgjordan 4y ago
As long as you're saying an AI-transformed image wouldn't be considered an inherently derivative work because of its process, I believe we're in violent agreement.

realusername 4y ago

No that's the opposite, patents are about the result and copyright is about the process. If that would work like that, all those image boards like Getty themselves would never be able to exist since there's so many near identical images produced independently.

Volundr 4y ago
That's not true. If you patent the Microwave, I am free to heat my food in the oven. The result is the food is cooked, the method is different. The process is a key part of the patent. Edit: After gasp researching (which maybe we should all consider before commenting) you can patent one of 4 things, process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent) so process is definitely something you can patent, but is not necessarily required.
- realusername 4y ago
  Yeah sure, to be more precise, to be a copyright derivative, the creation process must be examined, there's no way around it. You can totally create very similar artworks which don't share a copyright.

wgjordan 4y ago

As long as you're saying an AI-transformed image wouldn't be considered an inherently derivative work because of its process, I believe we're in violent agreement.