4 ms·

> In such a case, the human would be indeed granted copyright for the work, provided they took due credit for it. This goes against this news[1], where someone

• swatcoder 4y ago
  That’s interesting, but the obvious complication is that the author used language that attributes the tool as the creator of some work. But there’s no practical difference between Procreate and Stable Diffusion. One uses touch gestures and the other uses words, but they’re both just tools that express your vision. As a bureaucratic entity with matters of statutory authority and precedent to juggle, they would obviously prefer for you to just check the box that makes everyone’s life easier. It’s dumb, but it’s how institutions need to work.
  • Xelynega 4y ago
    > But there’s no practical difference between Procreate and Stable Diffusion. One is a statistical process from millions of copyrighted inputs while the other isn't? I think that's a pretty important difference between the two that would be relevant for copyright status.
• deathanatos 4y ago
  https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/25/glitch_us_copyright_office_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/25/glitch_us_copyright_o... It was reversed, again, i.e., Zarya Of The Dawn, the comic book generated with input from Midjourney, is currently copyrighted.
  • moefh 4y ago
    That's interesting, I hadn't seen that. But from that link, it seems the decision was not reversed again, they just clarified that the investigation is still ongoing -- that is, they have not yet decided whether they should have granted the copyright or not.
    • deathanatos 4y ago
      So my reading of this bit: > "The Office's Official Public Catalog, also known as Voyager, reflects the current official status of all copyright public records," a US Copyright Office spokesperson told The Register in a statement. Is that it is then under copyright. I suppose, yes, the Copyright Office could really do an about-face at any point. But I really don't think there's a good reason here: while certainly Midjourney did a lot of "work", I think both the process of coming up with the inputs, and if I'm understanding what the creators did correctly¹, the work of the storyline (my understanding is that Midjourney merely generates fantasy imagery, of the sort you might find on a MtG card) and the layout of the panes and text itself, and of and even subsets of that still seem to meet the "creativity" threshold. (…particular if rangeCheck is not de minimis…) (I have misgivings about the inputs used to train these AI … but that's a wholly different line of reasoning than what's discussed by the Office, here.) ¹From: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/a-new-york-artist-claims-to-have-set-a-precedent-by-copyrighting-their-a-i-assisted-comic-book-but-the-law-may-not-agree-2182531 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/a-new-york-artist-claims-t... > Kashtanova called their comic “A.I.-assisted.” and, > Kashtanova said the story behind Zarya took shape in their mind starting in September 2021, after the death of their grandmother Raya, who appears in the comic. […] The images were created using Midjourney’s A.I., based on Kashtanova’s prompts and overall vision. The artist then assembled everything into a standard comic format.
      • moefh 4y ago
        My reading is that, since the application was not immediately rejected, the copyright is active -- this is also mentioned in the original story I linked, which said the author had 30 days to appeal, during which time the copyright would still be active. So that's why the current status shows as "under copyright". But I read this bit: > "The US Copyright Office is aware of public reporting regarding an open copyright registration application. The Office has not issued a decision in this matter, and it remains ongoing" as indicating that the status of the application is still open, that is, it's still being processed by the office, and will be closed (as accepted or rejected) once a decision is made.