4 ms·
While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not ba
by Karawebnetwork 4y ago
While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not based on the fact that the work was created using AI. The decision was based on the fact that her edits were not considered to be original enough to warrant a copyright.
"The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists."
They also say that the changes are "too minor and imperceptible to supply the necessary creativity for copyright protection."
I want to highlight this part of the article:
---
Kashtanova’s lawyer Lindberg disagrees, saying, “There are a number of errors with the Office’s arguments, some legal and some factual. However, they all seem to stem from a core factual misunderstanding of the role that randomness plays in Midjourney’s image generation.”
The errors he lists include the interpretation of whether Kashtanova contributed a “modicum” of input or not. Did her prompt engineering qualify as a mere suggestion, or, as he argues, did her instructions cause Midjourney to “do exactly as it is programmed to do and pull from an artist-chosen place in its massive table of probabilities to drive the generation of an image”?
---
I personally agree with this perspective because it underscores the importance of understanding the specific nature of the AI tool being used and how it differs from other tools used by artists.
In the end, all I said is that I find it curious. I am not taking a strong position here.
- freejazz 4y ago>While it is true that the Copyright Office found that her edits were not sufficient to warrant a copyright, it's important to note that this decision was not based on the fact that the work was created using AI. The decision was based on the fact that her edits were not considered to be original enough to warrant a copyright. I'm well aware, and that's also exactly what I said... Yeah, it's no surprise that her attorney characterizes it in the exact fashion that should get her a copyright, but I completely disagree with the nature of those characterizations and I don't think the facts support such a reading. Hard to say it's doing "exactly as it is programmed to" when the same exact inputs will result in completely different outputs each time and in a way that's not predictable as opposed to using a tool that adds in randomization (like a noise generator, to give an image grain, for example).
- Karawebnetwork 4y agoThe reason people are so protective of their prompts is because using the same prompt with the same settings will always generate the exact same image even on a different computer. In fact, automatic1111 gui had previously introduced a now fixed bug where old prompts no longer generated the same images: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/discussions/2849 https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/disc...
- freejazz 4y agoI did not realize that about this model, nevertheless I think the point is made by the office that from the first step, there is no real sense of what would be returned.