4 ms·

It's all well and good that the copyright office deems that protection only applies to the parts of the work where a human was in control of the traditional ele

by bnj 4y ago

It's all well and good that the copyright office deems that protection only applies to the parts of the work where a human was in control of the traditional elements of authorship, and that there is a duty to disclose the use of generative technologies ... but now one can plausibly assert that they are the sole author of a work which was produced by one of these models, and be 100% confident that no one can dispute that.

layer8 4y ago
For a single work, yes. If they turn it into a high-volume business, it might become more difficult to maintain the plausibility in the long run, and they could be asked to put their claimed artistry to test in a controlled environment.
bawolff 4y ago
Being the copyright owner and being the author of something are very different things.
kjksf 4y ago
And it doesn't matter because anyone can use the AI to produce thousands of similar images with little effort. All those tools have randomization so they don't produce the exact same image for the exact same prompt. The value of an image produced by AI is very low because the cost to produce it is very low. No point in committing federal fraud by falsely claim you made them. > no one can dispute that Of course I can dispute that. I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision. If all you can do is type AI prompts into a computer, good luck producing an actual painting.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  The courts are not going to be able to stop the flood of AI generated images. Even now, when it takes a lot more human effort to generate an image because It has to be done by a human, the courts are ineffective at stopping the rampant and blatant copyright infringement that happens daily on a truly massive scale on the internet. Now that the floodgates of creativity have been opened by AI, the amount of content being generated is going to exponentially increase, and all the laws and courts in the world are not going to be able to even slow it.
- theferalrobot 4y ago
  > I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision. Have you ever seen a court do anything even remotely similar to this other than in Hollywood movies? Not only would there be serious freedom of expression/compelled speech aspects to doing that, it would be entirely impractical and ultimately prove nothing.

by bnj 4y ago

layer8 4y ago

For a single work, yes. If they turn it into a high-volume business, it might become more difficult to maintain the plausibility in the long run, and they could be asked to put their claimed artistry to test in a controlled environment.

bawolff 4y ago

Being the copyright owner and being the author of something are very different things.

kjksf 4y ago

And it doesn't matter because anyone can use the AI to produce thousands of similar images with little effort. All those tools have randomization so they don't produce the exact same image for the exact same prompt. The value of an image produced by AI is very low because the cost to produce it is very low. No point in committing federal fraud by falsely claim you made them. > no one can dispute that Of course I can dispute that. I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision. If all you can do is type AI prompts into a computer, good luck producing an actual painting.

pmoriarty 4y ago
The courts are not going to be able to stop the flood of AI generated images. Even now, when it takes a lot more human effort to generate an image because It has to be done by a human, the courts are ineffective at stopping the rampant and blatant copyright infringement that happens daily on a truly massive scale on the internet. Now that the floodgates of creativity have been opened by AI, the amount of content being generated is going to exponentially increase, and all the laws and courts in the world are not going to be able to even slow it.
theferalrobot 4y ago
> I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision. Have you ever seen a court do anything even remotely similar to this other than in Hollywood movies? Not only would there be serious freedom of expression/compelled speech aspects to doing that, it would be entirely impractical and ultimately prove nothing.