5 ms·

are not the product of human authorship This gets into dangerous territory. What level of AI tooling is required for an image to no longer be copyrightable? Wi

by causi 4y ago

are not the product of human authorship This gets into dangerous territory. What level of AI tooling is required for an image to no longer be copyrightable? Will this prevent software like Photoshop from including powerful AI-assisted tools? For example, what if Photoshop had a text box where you could just type in the edits you want, like "remove the man with the hat from the background" or "make all the kids smile at the camera" or "change the background and lighting to evening in Venice"? I can see painters in the 1800s throwing fits over how "exposing a photographic plate to light is not art!"

freejazz 4y ago
One thing I notice in approaching this issue as an attorney vs the way I see others discuss it is that it's not sufficient to just characterize things a certain way on a facial level. It's not convincing to a court or the copyright office to just call it "AI tooling", an argument needs to made w/r/t the facts of the situation, how these models' outputs differ from existing machine-driven processes (like various photoshop tools). It's in this nuance that the answer lies, and it's not in surface-level equivocation or appeals to "creativity". Like, the issue for the copyright office isn't that artists are whining that it's not "art", it's that copyright law only protects human expressions.
ROTMetro 4y ago
If I ask Bob to paint me a picture with the prompt 'Paint a banana wearing a green hat' do I own the copyright for Bob's painting because I provided the prompt?
- causi 4y ago
  If Bob is your employed artist, you do. If you set your own picture down in front of Bob and asked him to paint a banana wearing a green hat on top of it, which of you owns the copyright? If you tell photoshop to apply a blur filter over a picture, was the resulting image "created by non-human hands"?
- freejazz 4y ago
  It's called work for hire doctrine... it's not even remotely close to this issue. This is exactly how tons of artists do their work. Go watch "The Price of Everything" and see Koons' studio working exactly this way. You have to actually make an argument based in fact, not superficial characterizations that are belied by the facts and common sense.
  - VanTheBrand 4y ago
    That requires bob to sign a certificate of authorship. Good luck getting the AI to do that.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      That's not true. This is from the copyright office's circular on WFH: There are two situations in which a work made for hire is produced: (1) when the work is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties and (2) when a certain type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning the work. neither requires a "certificate of authorship" though one does require an "express agreement" though it need not necc. be a signed writing, let alone a cert of authorship.

by causi 4y ago

freejazz 4y ago

One thing I notice in approaching this issue as an attorney vs the way I see others discuss it is that it's not sufficient to just characterize things a certain way on a facial level. It's not convincing to a court or the copyright office to just call it "AI tooling", an argument needs to made w/r/t the facts of the situation, how these models' outputs differ from existing machine-driven processes (like various photoshop tools). It's in this nuance that the answer lies, and it's not in surface-level equivocation or appeals to "creativity". Like, the issue for the copyright office isn't that artists are whining that it's not "art", it's that copyright law only protects human expressions.

ROTMetro 4y ago

If I ask Bob to paint me a picture with the prompt 'Paint a banana wearing a green hat' do I own the copyright for Bob's painting because I provided the prompt?

causi 4y ago
If Bob is your employed artist, you do. If you set your own picture down in front of Bob and asked him to paint a banana wearing a green hat on top of it, which of you owns the copyright? If you tell photoshop to apply a blur filter over a picture, was the resulting image "created by non-human hands"?
freejazz 4y ago
It's called work for hire doctrine... it's not even remotely close to this issue. This is exactly how tons of artists do their work. Go watch "The Price of Everything" and see Koons' studio working exactly this way. You have to actually make an argument based in fact, not superficial characterizations that are belied by the facts and common sense.
- VanTheBrand 4y ago
  That requires bob to sign a certificate of authorship. Good luck getting the AI to do that.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    That's not true. This is from the copyright office's circular on WFH: There are two situations in which a work made for hire is produced: (1) when the work is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties and (2) when a certain type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning the work. neither requires a "certificate of authorship" though one does require an "express agreement" though it need not necc. be a signed writing, let alone a cert of authorship.