4 ms·

The current ruling for AI generated images is that they cannot have copyright by anyone because copyright only covers human-generated works. If a human didn't

The current ruling for AI generated images is that they cannot have copyright by anyone because copyright only covers human-generated works. If a human didn't create it, it can't have a copyright.

throwbadubadu 4y ago
Hmm.. so there is also procedural computer art, writing code to produce nice images. Also not copyrightable? At least the code? I draw an image. I write some lines of code that draws an image. I write many lines of code that do something, gather something, and then draws an image? I just wonder how one can reasonably draw hard lines (and now I don't mean art :D) in the future.. there are so many ridiculous incarnations of copyright and patent fights already out there..
- layer8 4y ago
  The principles are quite clear: Copyrightability is based on how much originality of a work is attributable to a human (because copyright law is limited to human creations). See [0]. In case of dispute, this has alway had to be assessed by a court on a case-by-case basis, there were never hard lines. In the context of using AI or coding, the question is how much creative control you have over the output. When writing code to draw an image pixel by pixel, then you have full control, probably even for procedural art when you devised the algorithm completely on your own. When using an existing library that can draw crayon strokes or produce nice water color fills, there is less attributable to your own creativity. Similar for AI, where it will have to be assessed how much of the creativity is attributable to the human-invented prompting (likely not much) vs. to the AI. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
bumby 4y ago
Humans can claim processes as intellectual property though. The question in my mind is: if I develop AI that to perform some specific task (like image generation), does that constitute a specific patentable process? And thus, if you use that process without compensation, are you stealing my intellectual property?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Shouldn't this depend on the licensing terms of the AI you are using to generate the content. I haven't read the various terms of current offerings. But it is probably not unreasonable to include bad terms in there...
  - bumby 4y ago
    Maybe, assuming you are using a third-party's tool directly. But I guess I was thinking more about the issue of someone creating a process that is more easily replicable. There are lots of instances of fairly fragile architectures that work really well in a particular application, but if you change some small part of that architecture, they fail. Now say I spend a lot of research time identifying that architecture and maybe even patent it as a process. I could even publish the methods of exactly what that process entails and somebody could copy it an use it. But I think that would be illegal (assuming AI can be patented in this way).

The current ruling for AI generated images is that they cannot have copyright by anyone because copyright only covers human-generated works. If a human didn't create it, it can't have a copyright.

throwbadubadu 4y ago

Hmm.. so there is also procedural computer art, writing code to produce nice images. Also not copyrightable? At least the code? I draw an image. I write some lines of code that draws an image. I write many lines of code that do something, gather something, and then draws an image? I just wonder how one can reasonably draw hard lines (and now I don't mean art :D) in the future.. there are so many ridiculous incarnations of copyright and patent fights already out there..

layer8 4y ago
The principles are quite clear: Copyrightability is based on how much originality of a work is attributable to a human (because copyright law is limited to human creations). See [0]. In case of dispute, this has alway had to be assessed by a court on a case-by-case basis, there were never hard lines. In the context of using AI or coding, the question is how much creative control you have over the output. When writing code to draw an image pixel by pixel, then you have full control, probably even for procedural art when you devised the algorithm completely on your own. When using an existing library that can draw crayon strokes or produce nice water color fills, there is less attributable to your own creativity. Similar for AI, where it will have to be assessed how much of the creativity is attributable to the human-invented prompting (likely not much) vs. to the AI. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

bumby 4y ago

Humans can claim processes as intellectual property though. The question in my mind is: if I develop AI that to perform some specific task (like image generation), does that constitute a specific patentable process? And thus, if you use that process without compensation, are you stealing my intellectual property?

Ekaros 4y ago
Shouldn't this depend on the licensing terms of the AI you are using to generate the content. I haven't read the various terms of current offerings. But it is probably not unreasonable to include bad terms in there...
- bumby 4y ago
  Maybe, assuming you are using a third-party's tool directly. But I guess I was thinking more about the issue of someone creating a process that is more easily replicable. There are lots of instances of fairly fragile architectures that work really well in a particular application, but if you change some small part of that architecture, they fail. Now say I spend a lot of research time identifying that architecture and maybe even patent it as a process. I could even publish the methods of exactly what that process entails and somebody could copy it an use it. But I think that would be illegal (assuming AI can be patented in this way).