4 ms·

Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? If I produce ad content for a company whose public image is incredibly importa

Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? If I produce ad content for a company whose public image is incredibly important (e.g. Apple) and that content includes AI art what is to stop a competitor, or anyone else, from reusing that same art in a counter ad or to produce other content to similarly harm the original company? On the other hand, if I were to use images from a stock photo company I could simply purchase an exclusive license the artwork used (and likely the entirety of the similar work from the shoot, used or not) to avoid this type of imitation.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? For some uses of stock art, probably not (nonexclusive use is common and cheaper), for others yes, if AI art is not copyrightable (an opinion of the Registrar of Copyrights that it is not if the only input from the human claimant to the finished work is a text prompt is perhaps being grossly overread the way some people seem to think it is settled law that imagery generated through the use of an “AI” tool is categorically uncopyrightable.)
- ghaff 3y ago
  I really don't see this bright line between "AI" tools and the ton of other tasks that Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. can do for you to various degrees. Increasingly (finally) voice/text will become an important command tool for many types of graphical tasks. Unless you drastically raise the threshold for copyright protection (e.g. you can't use a computer), I'm not sure where you draw a line.
- ssijak 3y ago
  by that definition it is enough to pass through an AI generated image in an upscaling program and it is now not just only the prompt. or open it in Photoshop and click once with a content-aware fill somewhere.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > by that definition it is enough to pass through an AI generated image in an upscaling program and it is now not just only the prompt. or open it in Photoshop and click once with a content-aware fill somewhere. No, its not, becauase the statement at issue covers only what is (in the Registrar’s interpretation) definitely outside of copyright protection, it does not do much to clarify what it takes outside of that clear exclusion to qualify for protection. To assume any image where the human work is more thane exactly a text prompt is protected is as much reading too much into it as assuming all AI-generated images are completely excluded.
pessimizer 3y ago
Copyright rests on nothing. As an issue, it only needs lobbyists to solve. It's easy to write Section 230 for AI, giving the owners of AI a ton of rights in return for no obligations..

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here? For some uses of stock art, probably not (nonexclusive use is common and cheaper), for others yes, if AI art is not copyrightable (an opinion of the Registrar of Copyrights that it is not if the only input from the human claimant to the finished work is a text prompt is perhaps being grossly overread the way some people seem to think it is settled law that imagery generated through the use of an “AI” tool is categorically uncopyrightable.)

ghaff 3y ago
I really don't see this bright line between "AI" tools and the ton of other tasks that Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. can do for you to various degrees. Increasingly (finally) voice/text will become an important command tool for many types of graphical tasks. Unless you drastically raise the threshold for copyright protection (e.g. you can't use a computer), I'm not sure where you draw a line.
ssijak 3y ago
by that definition it is enough to pass through an AI generated image in an upscaling program and it is now not just only the prompt. or open it in Photoshop and click once with a content-aware fill somewhere.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > by that definition it is enough to pass through an AI generated image in an upscaling program and it is now not just only the prompt. or open it in Photoshop and click once with a content-aware fill somewhere. No, its not, becauase the statement at issue covers only what is (in the Registrar’s interpretation) definitely outside of copyright protection, it does not do much to clarify what it takes outside of that clear exclusion to qualify for protection. To assume any image where the human work is more thane exactly a text prompt is protected is as much reading too much into it as assuming all AI-generated images are completely excluded.

pessimizer 3y ago

Copyright rests on nothing. As an issue, it only needs lobbyists to solve. It's easy to write Section 230 for AI, giving the owners of AI a ton of rights in return for no obligations..