3 ms·
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 ir
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat does make sense!
- sidewndr46 3y agoThe 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.