7 ms·

> The US Copyright Office determined recently that art created solely by AI isn’t eligible for copyright protection. Artists can attempt to register works made

> The US Copyright Office determined recently that art created solely by AI isn’t eligible for copyright protection. Artists can attempt to register works made with assistance from AI, but they must show significant “human authorship.” The issue is that only humans can own copyright. In the referenced Copyright Office determination, (“A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (“Work”)) homeboy tried to say that the computer was the author of the work (original copyright owner) and then transfer the copyright from the computer to himself. If he were to directly claim authorship and copyright then there would be no problem. The whole convoluted thing the human was doing to try to list the computer as the author is what got rejected. Just like the large primate that took a picture with a photographer's camera. Camera owner could claim copyright ownership, but copyright office would not give the copyright to the primate that pushed the trigger button because they are not human. Per speciesism if you ask me. ;-/ https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

ROTMetro 3y ago
Hint from an ex-con, lying to the Feds (especially in paperwork you sign your name to) isn't a great idea. Relevant quote: must show significant “human authorship.”
- penneyd 3y ago
  It wouldn't exist without a human actively creating/capturing it so doesn't seem as though that's an actual problem. Does a photograph involve significant human authorship - choosing a prompt or choosing to click the button on your DSLR is itself the act of authorship.
  - flipthefrog 3y ago
    Choosing when to click the button is a pretty essential part of photography. "I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung-up and ready to pounce, determined to “trap” life — to preserve life in the act of living. Above all, I craved to seize, in the confines of one single photograph, the whole essence of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes" Henri Cartier Bresson. The Decisive Moment
    - theLiminator 3y ago
      Choosing how to prompt the ai is a pretty essential part of ai prompting. "I crafted queries all day, feeling a sense of urgency and anticipation, determined to “guide” intelligence — to nurture intellect in the act of thinking. Above all, I yearned to capture, within the confines of one single prompt, the whole essence of some conundrum that was in the process of unraveling itself before my mind" Alexander Turington. The Guiding Query
    - pmoriarty 3y ago
      That was from back when film was expensive, and it was impractical to take thousands of pictures, as you can now. For decades now it's common for photographers to shoot countless photos and sort through them later to pick the best ones, rather than aiming for one perfect shot. Also consider movies and video, where you could have hours or days of footage from which to choose stills. The act of choosing in all these cases is critical to creativity, and the same is true when you choose what to prompt an AI with or which AI generated image to display or publish. Duchamp really did have the last word on this with his Fountain[1] over 100 years ago. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    I can commission a painting and give exacting details of what I want, but that does not make me the artist that created the painting (especially in the legal definition required to claim copyright ownership).
pie_flavor 3y ago
If he were to directly claim authorship, he would be lying. The copyright office issued specific guidelines saying that AI-generated content is not copyrightable. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence#citation-12-p16191 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  >The copyright office issued specific guidelines saying that AI-generated content is not copyrightable. The copyright office doesn't say that at all. "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry."
pavon 3y ago
It goes further than that. Kris Kashtanova made a comic book named "Zarya of the Dawn" using midjourney for all the art. When registering for copyright she claimed copyright over the art for herself, under the theory that she was prompting the AI, and it was just a tool. When the copyright office learned about this they revoked her copyright registration[1]. The view of the copyright office is that this is no different than the photographs taken by the monkey - the monkey can't claim copyright because they are not human, and the owner of the camera can't claim copyright because they didn't have sufficient creative input, so the work is ineligible for copyright at all. She is eligible for copyright on the text she wrote, the composition and editing performed on the images, but not the raw output of the AI. [1]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-co...
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  What is weird about this is that even if AI works aren't protected by copyright, under Feist a collection of uncopyrightable information can be protected if they are selected coordinated and arranged. That is almost certainly met when creating a comic book or graphic novel. The monkey taking a photo isn't a good example because they never tried to register it in the US, they never actually ruled on it. There is plenty of other case law showing "the modicum of creativity" is a low bar, copyright does not require "sweat of the brow".
- xwdv 3y ago
  Moral of the story is never reveal how you produced a particular art work.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    I think in the relatively near future, video of the artist creating a piece of art will be part of what makes a given piece of art valuable. The provenance will be just as important as the art itself.
    - 3y ago
wnkrshm 3y ago
Problem is, if the machine could hold copyright without significant human authorship, a single entity could create virtually all the pictures conceivable then own the copyright to all of visual art.
- Freebytes 3y ago
  And could theoretically cover the vector space of all 'reasonable' interpretations of 'art' within a small 32x32 image space. (That is, it would not need to cover all 32x32 pixels. Simply a subset of these that are within the realm of what humans might recognize as art.) Then own the copyright on all art that could ever be generated.
  - gnopgnip 3y ago
    Copyright doesn't protect against independent creation. If it didn't, these generated works would also be infringing literally every work
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  That seems like a problem with copyright rather than AI as such.
hammyhavoc 3y ago
If I have a bucket of paint balanced precariously on the edge of a table, and a gust of wind blows the curtains across the table, pulling the bucket down onto a canvas on the floor, who owns the copyright? Mother Nature? God? The wind? Me? The table? The curtain? The bucket? The paint?
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  If I ask a painter to paint a picture, and I tell them what I want on the painting down to the finest level, did I paint the picture?
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    No. If you write a script and someone makes a movie out of it, did you make the movie? No. You were the scriptwriter. If a client gives you a brief to develop x piece of software, did they develop it? No. They were in all probability, the pot of money or manager, and someone else at their company came up with the concept, or they acquired/licensed a patent and want to integrate that functionality into their existing product. If you write a piece of music and someone else performs it, are you the artist? No, you were the composer or songwriter. If you conduct an orchestra, are you the composer and instrumentalists? No. You were the conductor. If you sample someone's record within your hip-hop beat, did you create the original record you sampled from? No. And as such, the original's creator(s) should be compensated, and they generally are, either out of decency or through the courts. People need to know what it is they're actually doing. It's like people who conflate mixing with mastering, yet if you put their solely mixed music on vinyl, the needle will jump out of the groove due to too much bass, and suddenly it becomes clear why there are mastering engineers who specialize in vinyl.

ROTMetro 3y ago

Hint from an ex-con, lying to the Feds (especially in paperwork you sign your name to) isn't a great idea. Relevant quote: must show significant “human authorship.”

penneyd 3y ago
It wouldn't exist without a human actively creating/capturing it so doesn't seem as though that's an actual problem. Does a photograph involve significant human authorship - choosing a prompt or choosing to click the button on your DSLR is itself the act of authorship.
- flipthefrog 3y ago
  Choosing when to click the button is a pretty essential part of photography. "I prowled the streets all day, feeling very strung-up and ready to pounce, determined to “trap” life — to preserve life in the act of living. Above all, I craved to seize, in the confines of one single photograph, the whole essence of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes" Henri Cartier Bresson. The Decisive Moment
  - theLiminator 3y ago
    Choosing how to prompt the ai is a pretty essential part of ai prompting. "I crafted queries all day, feeling a sense of urgency and anticipation, determined to “guide” intelligence — to nurture intellect in the act of thinking. Above all, I yearned to capture, within the confines of one single prompt, the whole essence of some conundrum that was in the process of unraveling itself before my mind" Alexander Turington. The Guiding Query
  - pmoriarty 3y ago
    That was from back when film was expensive, and it was impractical to take thousands of pictures, as you can now. For decades now it's common for photographers to shoot countless photos and sort through them later to pick the best ones, rather than aiming for one perfect shot. Also consider movies and video, where you could have hours or days of footage from which to choose stills. The act of choosing in all these cases is critical to creativity, and the same is true when you choose what to prompt an AI with or which AI generated image to display or publish. Duchamp really did have the last word on this with his Fountain[1] over 100 years ago. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  I can commission a painting and give exacting details of what I want, but that does not make me the artist that created the painting (especially in the legal definition required to claim copyright ownership).

pie_flavor 3y ago

If he were to directly claim authorship, he would be lying. The copyright office issued specific guidelines saying that AI-generated content is not copyrightable. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence#citation-12-p16191 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

gnopgnip 3y ago
>The copyright office issued specific guidelines saying that AI-generated content is not copyrightable. The copyright office doesn't say that at all. "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry."

pavon 3y ago

It goes further than that. Kris Kashtanova made a comic book named "Zarya of the Dawn" using midjourney for all the art. When registering for copyright she claimed copyright over the art for herself, under the theory that she was prompting the AI, and it was just a tool. When the copyright office learned about this they revoked her copyright registration[1]. The view of the copyright office is that this is no different than the photographs taken by the monkey - the monkey can't claim copyright because they are not human, and the owner of the camera can't claim copyright because they didn't have sufficient creative input, so the work is ineligible for copyright at all. She is eligible for copyright on the text she wrote, the composition and editing performed on the images, but not the raw output of the AI. [1]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-co...

gnopgnip 3y ago
What is weird about this is that even if AI works aren't protected by copyright, under Feist a collection of uncopyrightable information can be protected if they are selected coordinated and arranged. That is almost certainly met when creating a comic book or graphic novel. The monkey taking a photo isn't a good example because they never tried to register it in the US, they never actually ruled on it. There is plenty of other case law showing "the modicum of creativity" is a low bar, copyright does not require "sweat of the brow".
xwdv 3y ago
Moral of the story is never reveal how you produced a particular art work.
- daveguy 3y ago
  I think in the relatively near future, video of the artist creating a piece of art will be part of what makes a given piece of art valuable. The provenance will be just as important as the art itself.
  - 3y ago

wnkrshm 3y ago

Problem is, if the machine could hold copyright without significant human authorship, a single entity could create virtually all the pictures conceivable then own the copyright to all of visual art.

Freebytes 3y ago
And could theoretically cover the vector space of all 'reasonable' interpretations of 'art' within a small 32x32 image space. (That is, it would not need to cover all 32x32 pixels. Simply a subset of these that are within the realm of what humans might recognize as art.) Then own the copyright on all art that could ever be generated.
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  Copyright doesn't protect against independent creation. If it didn't, these generated works would also be infringing literally every work
anigbrowl 3y ago
That seems like a problem with copyright rather than AI as such.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

If I have a bucket of paint balanced precariously on the edge of a table, and a gust of wind blows the curtains across the table, pulling the bucket down onto a canvas on the floor, who owns the copyright? Mother Nature? God? The wind? Me? The table? The curtain? The bucket? The paint?

ROTMetro 3y ago
If I ask a painter to paint a picture, and I tell them what I want on the painting down to the finest level, did I paint the picture?
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  No. If you write a script and someone makes a movie out of it, did you make the movie? No. You were the scriptwriter. If a client gives you a brief to develop x piece of software, did they develop it? No. They were in all probability, the pot of money or manager, and someone else at their company came up with the concept, or they acquired/licensed a patent and want to integrate that functionality into their existing product. If you write a piece of music and someone else performs it, are you the artist? No, you were the composer or songwriter. If you conduct an orchestra, are you the composer and instrumentalists? No. You were the conductor. If you sample someone's record within your hip-hop beat, did you create the original record you sampled from? No. And as such, the original's creator(s) should be compensated, and they generally are, either out of decency or through the courts. People need to know what it is they're actually doing. It's like people who conflate mixing with mastering, yet if you put their solely mixed music on vinyl, the needle will jump out of the groove due to too much bass, and suddenly it becomes clear why there are mastering engineers who specialize in vinyl.