3 ms·

"Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such system

"Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material." As an artist and a musician I use various degrees of randomness in my work - from feedback and "noise" in a composition to abstract splatters in my paintings. Plenty of art, writing, and music is the result of partially or completely random techniques, over which the artist has little to no control, and AI generated works are just another tool in the hands of a creator. The copyright office understands neither art nor creativity.

agentwiggles 4y ago
I tend to agree, and I find myself doubtful that this will remain the status quo for very long. As soon as these things reach the point where they could realistically be used for something like a Disney movie, all of a sudden there will be a lot of money behind finding ways to make the output copyrightable. It seems to me that there's a spectrum here. If, for example, I create an animated music video for a song (that I own) by using Stable Diffusion to generate the imagery, generate all the prompts that are fed to the model, cut and edit that imagery together via my own creative vision... Where does the line between my authorship and the model's end? I'm not allowed to claim any ownership of that output? Then again... If someone enters a similar prompt, and gets similar output, should I have some claim to that? It's a pretty tricky philosophical issue, honestly. The more I think about it, I think I'm ok with this as the general framework, at least for now, as, if nothing else, it may prevent powerful interests like Disney from gobbling up ownership of the whole generative AI space in its infancy
- mlindner 4y ago
  I think that's covered pretty clearly in this document? If you add creative vision on top of the generated output, then that creative vision is copyrightable.

agentwiggles 4y ago

I tend to agree, and I find myself doubtful that this will remain the status quo for very long. As soon as these things reach the point where they could realistically be used for something like a Disney movie, all of a sudden there will be a lot of money behind finding ways to make the output copyrightable. It seems to me that there's a spectrum here. If, for example, I create an animated music video for a song (that I own) by using Stable Diffusion to generate the imagery, generate all the prompts that are fed to the model, cut and edit that imagery together via my own creative vision... Where does the line between my authorship and the model's end? I'm not allowed to claim any ownership of that output? Then again... If someone enters a similar prompt, and gets similar output, should I have some claim to that? It's a pretty tricky philosophical issue, honestly. The more I think about it, I think I'm ok with this as the general framework, at least for now, as, if nothing else, it may prevent powerful interests like Disney from gobbling up ownership of the whole generative AI space in its infancy

mlindner 4y ago
I think that's covered pretty clearly in this document? If you add creative vision on top of the generated output, then that creative vision is copyrightable.