5 ms·

Is a photograph of a painting itself copyrighted? Img2img or controlnet can basically do that, in less than 30 seconds. Even as someone extremely pro-AI art, I

Is a photograph of a painting itself copyrighted? Img2img or controlnet can basically do that, in less than 30 seconds. Even as someone extremely pro-AI art, I don't think AI-generated content should have copyright in the usual sense. Every art model was trained on massive amounts of copyrighted data, it would be very hypocritical to suddenly claim strong copyright on the output of AI generated items. I think AI generated copyright should be 'pay-to-register', people can pay say $5 per image to register their image, if they believe it to be valuable enough to be copyrighted. In this sense, its more like trademarks, rather than the automatic moral right of copyright. Your average AI art (which is worthless) will not be copyrighted. The ones with significant amounts of attention, post-editing, and economic value, the AI artist can simply register at the copyright office. The extra funding for the copyright office, will also give them more staffing to deal with the torrential tide of AI-related copyright issues, and encourage them to build a healthy ecosystem where manual art and AI art co-exists.

VanL 4y ago
A photo that tries to capture an existing painting as closely as possible is not copyrightable. However, even minor changes (such as changing the tint of the photo) have been found to be enough for copyrightability.
- aiappreciator 4y ago
  AI is far more productive, and easier in modifying source pictures, than photography. Controlnet is not a mere tint, it can generate 20 artstyle variations of the source image in 30 seconds. No artist will have any income if this those AI outputs are copyrightable without cost. I don't think past-decisions are that important here. There'll definitely be new laws around AI generated content, that set clear standards. Those standards have to consider the social impact of copyright and the livelihood of artists. The whole point of copyright is not some abstract golden moral standard, but something that keeps artists and writers employed. That's why I think pay-for-copyright is the best balance in terms of liberty for AI art but preserving the incomes of traditional artists.
  - orbital-decay 4y ago
    This is the same as saying that the generative art (which has been a thing for decades) provides infinite variation. This is only technically true: the "infinite" variations of the procedurally generated art are all constrained by the original creator's intent, which is exactly what gives such art value. The generative art is not set in fixed pixels, but instead is represented in a fuzzy form (equations, algorithms etc) that slightly varies each time you look at it. The value of it is also constrained by the author's intent and work. Only humans can be subject to copyright, so it at least makes common (if not legal) sense. ML models are the same as the generative art that previously existed - they only add the captured essence of the prior data to the mix of human artistic intent and hard algorithms.
  - tylersmith 4y ago
    What is the value of artists having incomes if the same art can be generated instead?
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Actually this is still in debate with the whole Warhol Prince pictures thing, but should be ruled on this early this year.
autoexec 4y ago
> The ones with significant amounts of attention, post-editing, and economic value, the AI artist can simply register at the copyright office. Even leaving aside that some people think coming up a prompt or choosing from multiple generated images is itself work enough to justify copyright you'll have so many very similar images registered that copyright trolls could still intimidate people into forking over settlement money and people would still argue that even the smallest changes (say to brightness level/saturation) justifies their copyright. Leaving AI generated works free from copyright would be ideal, since it'd free those images for others to build off of and remix and reuse in new ways, it encourages commercial projects to hire human artists so that they can gain the protection of copyright, and it doesn't stop anyone from doing what they want with the technology. Comic book authors who illustrate their work using AI can still copyright their stories, trademark their characters, etc.
- aiappreciator 4y ago
  "it encourages commercial projects to hire human artists so that they can gain the protection of copyright" How is this relevant to AI copyright? If AI art is copyrightable, they'd still need someone to generate the AI art. That person is an 'artist' in the legal sense, regardless if they can draw or not. If AI art is not copyrightable, they can still hire a non-artist (fully outsourcable), to do some minor post-editing of the AI art, and copyright it.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > If AI art is not copyrightable, they can still hire a non-artist (fully outsourcable), to do some minor post-editing of the AI art, and copyright it. I'm arguing that they shouldn't be able to do that either. If a company wants to create something protected by copyright they should hire a human to do it. If they don't care about the copyright, then they can take advantage of AI generated art and everyone else can use the result for whatever they want. It makes it easy. If an AI made it, no copyright. If a human made it, copyright. There's no bickering over whether or not someone spent enough time post-editing or coming up with the perfect prompt. Artists stay employable, more artistic works gets into the public domain and there are no restrictions on how AI generated art can be used and no opportunity for copyright trolls to abuse the system. Everybody wins.
shagie 4y ago
Yes, a photograph of a painting is copyrighted, but it is also a derivative work. If you want to read more about, it I recommend Legal Handbook for Photographers ( https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/1608954757 https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-L... ) and note that this isn't just a random person writing a book... > Bert P. Krages, Esq., is an attorney who specializes in intellectual property. He is the author of "Handbook for Photographers" and "Heavenly Bodies "and Photography: The Art of Composition" --- Registering works is "pay to register" and has been for some time. Though you can do it in bulk. https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ --- My takes on your examples: Img2img : The AI created art is a derivative work of the source image. By itself it is not copyrightable as there is no human creativity at work. Txt2img : The text prompt is copyrightable, though that's rather boring. The AI art generated by it is a derivative work of the text prompt and is not copyrightable. Post processing : Just as DuChamp's L.H.O.O.Q. was copyrightable in its day and the source material for it was not (the work of an old master), so to the human modified image that was original AI (and uncopyrightable) is now a work that can be copyrighted. Note that these are my interpretation of current copyright law and (to me) seem rather reasonable. See https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... sections 306, and 313.2. Changing this is a change in the law (e.g. need congress to do it) rather than a change in how the copyright office interprets the law. Copyright office funding : https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2022/house-budget-testimony-fy22.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2022/house-budget-tes... aside from managing the capital request to implement the CASE act, they are already pretty much self funded from royalties and fees. Consider also the painting "Edmond de Belamy" and the surrounding debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_de_Belamy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_de_Belamy . While this isn't the final say, you can be sure that lawyers have looked at it - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmond_de_Belamy.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmond_de_Belamy.png and note the licensing section and its link to the UK copyright office - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views/artificial-intelligence-call-for-views-copyright-and-related-rights https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel... ... and that copyright in the UK is based on sweat of the brow (which was rejected with Feist v. Rural Telephone Service in 1991 in the US to instead apply original works of authorship)
jay_kyburz 4y ago
>I think AI generated copyright should be 'pay-to-register', people can pay say $5 per image to register their image, if they believe it to be valuable enough to be copyrighted. In this sense, its more like trademarks, rather than the automatic moral right of copyright. I like this idea so much, it should be extended to all copyright. Not only does it make very clear when something was "published", we could have a central repository of copyrighted works you could search and review. All work published after 2025 is public domain unless resisted with the global copyright office.

VanL 4y ago

A photo that tries to capture an existing painting as closely as possible is not copyrightable. However, even minor changes (such as changing the tint of the photo) have been found to be enough for copyrightability.

aiappreciator 4y ago
AI is far more productive, and easier in modifying source pictures, than photography. Controlnet is not a mere tint, it can generate 20 artstyle variations of the source image in 30 seconds. No artist will have any income if this those AI outputs are copyrightable without cost. I don't think past-decisions are that important here. There'll definitely be new laws around AI generated content, that set clear standards. Those standards have to consider the social impact of copyright and the livelihood of artists. The whole point of copyright is not some abstract golden moral standard, but something that keeps artists and writers employed. That's why I think pay-for-copyright is the best balance in terms of liberty for AI art but preserving the incomes of traditional artists.
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  This is the same as saying that the generative art (which has been a thing for decades) provides infinite variation. This is only technically true: the "infinite" variations of the procedurally generated art are all constrained by the original creator's intent, which is exactly what gives such art value. The generative art is not set in fixed pixels, but instead is represented in a fuzzy form (equations, algorithms etc) that slightly varies each time you look at it. The value of it is also constrained by the author's intent and work. Only humans can be subject to copyright, so it at least makes common (if not legal) sense. ML models are the same as the generative art that previously existed - they only add the captured essence of the prior data to the mix of human artistic intent and hard algorithms.
- tylersmith 4y ago
  What is the value of artists having incomes if the same art can be generated instead?
ROTMetro 4y ago
Actually this is still in debate with the whole Warhol Prince pictures thing, but should be ruled on this early this year.

autoexec 4y ago

> The ones with significant amounts of attention, post-editing, and economic value, the AI artist can simply register at the copyright office. Even leaving aside that some people think coming up a prompt or choosing from multiple generated images is itself work enough to justify copyright you'll have so many very similar images registered that copyright trolls could still intimidate people into forking over settlement money and people would still argue that even the smallest changes (say to brightness level/saturation) justifies their copyright. Leaving AI generated works free from copyright would be ideal, since it'd free those images for others to build off of and remix and reuse in new ways, it encourages commercial projects to hire human artists so that they can gain the protection of copyright, and it doesn't stop anyone from doing what they want with the technology. Comic book authors who illustrate their work using AI can still copyright their stories, trademark their characters, etc.

aiappreciator 4y ago
"it encourages commercial projects to hire human artists so that they can gain the protection of copyright" How is this relevant to AI copyright? If AI art is copyrightable, they'd still need someone to generate the AI art. That person is an 'artist' in the legal sense, regardless if they can draw or not. If AI art is not copyrightable, they can still hire a non-artist (fully outsourcable), to do some minor post-editing of the AI art, and copyright it.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > If AI art is not copyrightable, they can still hire a non-artist (fully outsourcable), to do some minor post-editing of the AI art, and copyright it. I'm arguing that they shouldn't be able to do that either. If a company wants to create something protected by copyright they should hire a human to do it. If they don't care about the copyright, then they can take advantage of AI generated art and everyone else can use the result for whatever they want. It makes it easy. If an AI made it, no copyright. If a human made it, copyright. There's no bickering over whether or not someone spent enough time post-editing or coming up with the perfect prompt. Artists stay employable, more artistic works gets into the public domain and there are no restrictions on how AI generated art can be used and no opportunity for copyright trolls to abuse the system. Everybody wins.

shagie 4y ago

Yes, a photograph of a painting is copyrighted, but it is also a derivative work. If you want to read more about, it I recommend Legal Handbook for Photographers ( https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/1608954757 https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-L... ) and note that this isn't just a random person writing a book... > Bert P. Krages, Esq., is an attorney who specializes in intellectual property. He is the author of "Handbook for Photographers" and "Heavenly Bodies "and Photography: The Art of Composition" --- Registering works is "pay to register" and has been for some time. Though you can do it in bulk. https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ --- My takes on your examples: Img2img : The AI created art is a derivative work of the source image. By itself it is not copyrightable as there is no human creativity at work. Txt2img : The text prompt is copyrightable, though that's rather boring. The AI art generated by it is a derivative work of the text prompt and is not copyrightable. Post processing : Just as DuChamp's L.H.O.O.Q. was copyrightable in its day and the source material for it was not (the work of an old master), so to the human modified image that was original AI (and uncopyrightable) is now a work that can be copyrighted. Note that these are my interpretation of current copyright law and (to me) seem rather reasonable. See https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... sections 306, and 313.2. Changing this is a change in the law (e.g. need congress to do it) rather than a change in how the copyright office interprets the law. Copyright office funding : https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2022/house-budget-testimony-fy22.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/about/budget/2022/house-budget-tes... aside from managing the capital request to implement the CASE act, they are already pretty much self funded from royalties and fees. Consider also the painting "Edmond de Belamy" and the surrounding debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_de_Belamy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_de_Belamy . While this isn't the final say, you can be sure that lawyers have looked at it - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmond_de_Belamy.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmond_de_Belamy.png and note the licensing section and its link to the UK copyright office - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views/artificial-intelligence-call-for-views-copyright-and-related-rights https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel... ... and that copyright in the UK is based on sweat of the brow (which was rejected with Feist v. Rural Telephone Service in 1991 in the US to instead apply original works of authorship)

jay_kyburz 4y ago

>I think AI generated copyright should be 'pay-to-register', people can pay say $5 per image to register their image, if they believe it to be valuable enough to be copyrighted. In this sense, its more like trademarks, rather than the automatic moral right of copyright. I like this idea so much, it should be extended to all copyright. Not only does it make very clear when something was "published", we could have a central repository of copyrighted works you could search and review. All work published after 2025 is public domain unless resisted with the global copyright office.