4 ms·

Anyone able to comment on where in their opinion the measure is for current state of copyright law when generative AI is a subset of an image?

Spivak 4y ago
It's currently unknown, but copyright law is really political in nature and companies are hopping on using AI like crazy and delivering real value so my expectation is that it will be granted fair use for no philosophical reason but because US legislators don't want to put their boot-heel on American business. Because if they stifle this is will basically cement China is the world's AI powerhouse who will give zero shits about copyright. This is gonna be interesting times for copyright because this is the first time copyrighted works are actually useful in building tools. I think it's a very neat real-world example of how universities are actually right to make engineers take humanities courses because your code writing AI is actually better for having read Vonnegut.
nstj 4y ago
``` Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 03/16/2023 ``` https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
- O__________O 4y ago
  Aware of the ruling, reviewed it when it was released, though it does not appears to cover any aspect related to for example layout, color select, etc — and to me targets one-shot generative art; poorly so at that. As is, landscape photographers for example, control camera angle, timing of photograph, camera type, lens type, etc — but they rarely create the landscape itself or for that matter the equipment and related technologies. Even “found object” art is covered by copyright: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object At this point, to me, it’s unclear author of that ruling even understands technology used to create the outputs that were the subject of that ruling.
ghaff 4y ago
Basically, no one knows. But the IP lawyers I know are generally of the opinion that, manufactured possible violations notwithstanding, it's probably OK for the most part.
superbatfish 4y ago
There are at least two potential issues pertaining to copyright law here, and it's not clear which one you're asking about. That's why the responses you're getting here seem to be answering different questions. 1. Are the AI systems violating the copyright protections of the images they were trained on? If so, are users of such AI systems also in violation of those copyrights when they create works derived from those training images? Answer: That's not yet settled. 2. If you make an image with an AI system, is your new image eligible for copyright protection, or is it ineligible due to the "human authorship requirement"? Answer: The US Copyright Office recently wrote[1] that your work is eligible for copyright if you altered it afterwards in a meaningful way. Here's a quote: >When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application. >In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
- O__________O 4y ago
  As I am sure you’re aware, already posted response US Copyright’s ruling related to authorship here, so will not be repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 Will say that post you linked to also states, “17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of “compilation”). In the case of a compilation including AI-generated material, the computer-generated material will not be protected outside of the compilation.” — the problem is that unlike say for example a compilation of recipes, where the individual recipes are not protected, but the compilation is, there is no clear delineation within a singular work of art such delineation. As such, injecting such delineations is counterproductive and shows no understanding of the nature and spirit of the rule of law. Further, while their opinion appears to be a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright, clearly photographs of the output of a recipes are commonly photographed and given copyright protection. Sure others have made far more compelling arguments against the ruling, but to me, the ruling lacks merit as is.

Spivak 4y ago

It's currently unknown, but copyright law is really political in nature and companies are hopping on using AI like crazy and delivering real value so my expectation is that it will be granted fair use for no philosophical reason but because US legislators don't want to put their boot-heel on American business. Because if they stifle this is will basically cement China is the world's AI powerhouse who will give zero shits about copyright. This is gonna be interesting times for copyright because this is the first time copyrighted works are actually useful in building tools. I think it's a very neat real-world example of how universities are actually right to make engineers take humanities courses because your code writing AI is actually better for having read Vonnegut.

nstj 4y ago

``` Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 03/16/2023 ``` https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

O__________O 4y ago
Aware of the ruling, reviewed it when it was released, though it does not appears to cover any aspect related to for example layout, color select, etc — and to me targets one-shot generative art; poorly so at that. As is, landscape photographers for example, control camera angle, timing of photograph, camera type, lens type, etc — but they rarely create the landscape itself or for that matter the equipment and related technologies. Even “found object” art is covered by copyright: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object At this point, to me, it’s unclear author of that ruling even understands technology used to create the outputs that were the subject of that ruling.

ghaff 4y ago

Basically, no one knows. But the IP lawyers I know are generally of the opinion that, manufactured possible violations notwithstanding, it's probably OK for the most part.

superbatfish 4y ago

There are at least two potential issues pertaining to copyright law here, and it's not clear which one you're asking about. That's why the responses you're getting here seem to be answering different questions. 1. Are the AI systems violating the copyright protections of the images they were trained on? If so, are users of such AI systems also in violation of those copyrights when they create works derived from those training images? Answer: That's not yet settled. 2. If you make an image with an AI system, is your new image eligible for copyright protection, or is it ineligible due to the "human authorship requirement"? Answer: The US Copyright Office recently wrote[1] that your work is eligible for copyright if you altered it afterwards in a meaningful way. Here's a quote: >When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application. >In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

O__________O 4y ago
As I am sure you’re aware, already posted response US Copyright’s ruling related to authorship here, so will not be repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377 Will say that post you linked to also states, “17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of “compilation”). In the case of a compilation including AI-generated material, the computer-generated material will not be protected outside of the compilation.” — the problem is that unlike say for example a compilation of recipes, where the individual recipes are not protected, but the compilation is, there is no clear delineation within a singular work of art such delineation. As such, injecting such delineations is counterproductive and shows no understanding of the nature and spirit of the rule of law. Further, while their opinion appears to be a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright, clearly photographs of the output of a recipes are commonly photographed and given copyright protection. Sure others have made far more compelling arguments against the ruling, but to me, the ruling lacks merit as is.