3 ms·
There maybe some need to legally clarify how much input is necessary for Tom to claim copyright. ChatGPT can't, legally speaking only humans are capable of cl
by stonemetal12 4y ago
There maybe some need to legally clarify how much input is necessary for Tom to claim copyright.
ChatGPT can't, legally speaking only humans are capable of claiming copyright. In the monkey selfie case a few years ago it was determined animals and machines can't claim copyright. In cases where there is no human author, the work is public domain.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoIsn't there a difference between a monkey taking a picture (no human author involved) and a person using a tool (ChatGPT) to help them realise their original work? If I made a drawing with one of those old plastic spirograph tools I'd never wonder if the copyright was mine or the spirograph's.
- stonemetal12 4y agoSure, even though photos are machine made, Humans claim copyright because they had artistic input on composition and framing. Between fully AI generated stuff, and human artistic input prompts causing output there is a line where the results go from copyrightable to not copyrightable. The question is where is that line, legally. To me GPT is either very close to or already crosses that line.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoI feel like I have to wrestle with GPT to get the output I'm imagining a lot more than I ever have done with a camera.