3 ms·

Nothing is purely mechanically produced. There is always some input. In this case, the images were produced from prompts and entropy. The author clearly should

Nothing is purely mechanically produced. There is always some input. In this case, the images were produced from prompts and entropy. The author clearly should own the prompts. Nobody should own the entropy. So who owns the output, if not the author?

saurik 4y ago
If I ask you to make 100 images of "a monkey sitting at a computer realizing it is out of a job" and then I select the best one that best matched what I intended, I do not own the copyright: you do. I can instead compensate you something to agree to assign the copyright of the image (or even all of the images) to me, and structure it as a "work for hire", but the expression of my idea into an image is the copyrightable work there, not my idea itself; and, neither, does curation of your works convert any of your work into my work. Now, if I ask an AI to give me the same 100 images and merely select the best one, in some sense maybe the AI owns the copyright?... but we don't want to support that concept, as that AI doesn't have rights, so I guess no one owns the copyright. If you want copyright over its work, I guess you need to make sure it has some basic inhuman rights to begin with and then be prepared to pay it some fair compensation for its copyright.
- pishpash 4y ago
  Suppose you wrote this AI yourself, and you trained it on data you own. Does it change anything? It makes no sense that because there is an AI in the middle, that you lose copyright over the output. What if you trained it on public domain data? I think, in the case of an AI without rights being the upstream of a piece of work (and no other licensing issues with the owner of the AI), the next proximate entity to the work owns the rights, so it would be the author/curator, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter how little they did. It's that they did something and nobody else is claiming rights. There is no point referring back to a world where only humans are interacting with each other. It's a dangerous precedent to say that AI output receives no copyright, because it is the same as what you're implying, that AI is not a tool, but an entity that siphoned off some of the rights, like maybe a child or a slave. If the USCO wants to declare that then they should do so, otherwise the case is wrongly decided and needs to go in front of a more intelligent judge.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cypress66 4y ago
Is it entropy if it's a PRNG and you manually choose a seed? I'd say not.

saurik 4y ago

If I ask you to make 100 images of "a monkey sitting at a computer realizing it is out of a job" and then I select the best one that best matched what I intended, I do not own the copyright: you do. I can instead compensate you something to agree to assign the copyright of the image (or even all of the images) to me, and structure it as a "work for hire", but the expression of my idea into an image is the copyrightable work there, not my idea itself; and, neither, does curation of your works convert any of your work into my work. Now, if I ask an AI to give me the same 100 images and merely select the best one, in some sense maybe the AI owns the copyright?... but we don't want to support that concept, as that AI doesn't have rights, so I guess no one owns the copyright. If you want copyright over its work, I guess you need to make sure it has some basic inhuman rights to begin with and then be prepared to pay it some fair compensation for its copyright.

pishpash 4y ago
Suppose you wrote this AI yourself, and you trained it on data you own. Does it change anything? It makes no sense that because there is an AI in the middle, that you lose copyright over the output. What if you trained it on public domain data? I think, in the case of an AI without rights being the upstream of a piece of work (and no other licensing issues with the owner of the AI), the next proximate entity to the work owns the rights, so it would be the author/curator, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter how little they did. It's that they did something and nobody else is claiming rights. There is no point referring back to a world where only humans are interacting with each other. It's a dangerous precedent to say that AI output receives no copyright, because it is the same as what you're implying, that AI is not a tool, but an entity that siphoned off some of the rights, like maybe a child or a slave. If the USCO wants to declare that then they should do so, otherwise the case is wrongly decided and needs to go in front of a more intelligent judge.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

cypress66 4y ago

Is it entropy if it's a PRNG and you manually choose a seed? I'd say not.