2 ms·

So the control net example (which is image to image) is copyrightable, but the OP case (text to image) is not? Then the line to draw is that when there's a cha

So the control net example (which is image to image) is copyrightable, but the OP case (text to image) is not? Then the line to draw is that when there's a change in modality, it's not copyrightable? Most people are probably going to end up using something like controlnet anyway because of the extra control it gives you.

JohnFen 4y ago
No, I don't think that it has to do with modality. Again, IANAL, but as I understand it, the legal line is how much of the art was created by a human. There is certainly a gray area here that will have to be hashed out, but I don't think it's as large as you think it is. The rulings are going to be about whether or not the creative work is the work of a human. I imagine that a case can be made that describing a work to a machine and having the machine engage in the creativity part means the creative work is done by the machine, not the human. But if the human did the creative work and the machine modified it, then the work is done by the human. Of course, we're all speculating here. I have no idea how the courts will rule on these things. I could even see the necessity of Congress making some clarifying laws. Also, understand that I am not expressing what I personally think should be the case. I'm just trying to work out what is, or is likely, to be the case.