4 ms·
> if you used ai to design a new superhero and then added pink shoes, yellow hair, and a beard Wouldn't that depend heavily on the prompt used (among other fac
by rhtgrg 4y ago
> if you used ai to design a new superhero and then added pink shoes, yellow hair, and a beard
Wouldn't that depend heavily on the prompt used (among other factors such as image to image and ControlNet)? You could be specifying lots of detail about the design in your prompt, and the AI could only be generating concept artwork with little variation from what you already provided.
If I'm already providing the pose, the face, and the outfit for a character (say via ControlNet and Textual Inversion), generating <my_character> should be no different from generating <superman>, that is to say, the copyright already exists thanks to my work and the AI is just a tool, the output of which should have no bearing on who owns that copyright (DC is going to be perfectly able to challenge my commercial use of AI generated superman artwork).
- LegitShady 4y agoAccording to the copyright board a promot is not anymore than any person commissioning a work from an artist, which does not provide copyright, and the lack of human authorship for the design decisions still stops it from being protected by copyright.
- staticman2 4y agoCopyright.gov says the copyright office has started an initiative to examine AI copyright issues. That makes me think even the copyright board is not confident of their answer.
- LegitShady 4y agohttps://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... They released this guidance earlier this month. It isn't that difficult to understand.
- rhtgrg 4y agoTextual inversion involves providing self-created images, which should confer copyright in the same way AI images of DC's superman are considered to fall under the copyright of DC. In other words, commissioning fanart still allows the original owner of the IP to exert copyright -- shouldn't that be the case here?