4 ms·

Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyr

Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."

jeffparsons 3y ago
> Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a second, imagine that I took four images of living artists' work, placed them in a 2x2 grid, and called that a new artwork. There are two seperate questions to consider: (1) have I infringed upon the original authors' copyrights, and (2) is the new thing I have created eligible for copyright. The stance that there is "no copyright protection for works created by non-humans" only addresses the second question, not the first question of how it interacts with existing copyrights.
- visarga 3y ago
  If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    You missed the question.
    - wernercd 3y ago
      Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine. Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator. https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco... > "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user. > "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output." > "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."
Aerroon 3y ago
Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by a non-human? What if I use a printer?
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? From what I gather, they just don't consider it a creation in a way that pertains to copyright laws. Like a rock on the beach.
- wccrawford 3y ago
  I read it that a program/computer/robot cannot hold copyright. If someone uses AI to generate art, the AI doesn't hold the copyright. (Notice it doesn't say anything about the user.) Likewise, if Photoshop is used to create art, Photoshop doesn't hold the copyright. It's a tool, not a conscious being with rights.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    That does make sense!
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The program for the robot you could copyright. The picture you could not. Let's be realistic here: there is no oracle indicating something was generated by AI. Most graphic artists have been using partially machine generated work from tools like Photoshop for a decade or more. They just don't mention it.
caturopath 3y ago
Thanks for following up. This article is pretty dissatisfying to me. https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf is the letter that lays out why they don't think Midjourney is a paintbrush rather than a monkey. I can't tell that this is a long-standing interpretation, rather than a recent ruling, conceivably a blip.

jeffparsons 3y ago

> Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a second, imagine that I took four images of living artists' work, placed them in a 2x2 grid, and called that a new artwork. There are two seperate questions to consider: (1) have I infringed upon the original authors' copyrights, and (2) is the new thing I have created eligible for copyright. The stance that there is "no copyright protection for works created by non-humans" only addresses the second question, not the first question of how it interacts with existing copyrights.

visarga 3y ago
If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  You missed the question.
  - wernercd 3y ago
    Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine. Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator. https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco... > "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user. > "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output." > "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."

Aerroon 3y ago

Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by a non-human? What if I use a printer?

jstummbillig 3y ago
> Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? From what I gather, they just don't consider it a creation in a way that pertains to copyright laws. Like a rock on the beach.
wccrawford 3y ago
I read it that a program/computer/robot cannot hold copyright. If someone uses AI to generate art, the AI doesn't hold the copyright. (Notice it doesn't say anything about the user.) Likewise, if Photoshop is used to create art, Photoshop doesn't hold the copyright. It's a tool, not a conscious being with rights.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  That does make sense!
sidewndr46 3y ago
The program for the robot you could copyright. The picture you could not. Let's be realistic here: there is no oracle indicating something was generated by AI. Most graphic artists have been using partially machine generated work from tools like Photoshop for a decade or more. They just don't mention it.

caturopath 3y ago

Thanks for following up. This article is pretty dissatisfying to me. https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf is the letter that lays out why they don't think Midjourney is a paintbrush rather than a monkey. I can't tell that this is a long-standing interpretation, rather than a recent ruling, conceivably a blip.