3 ms·

Step one: Take a piece of AI-generated art. Step two: Very slightly modify it. (Visual art: Apply a color filter, draw in a single element, have a different

Step one: Take a piece of AI-generated art. Step two: Very slightly modify it. (Visual art: Apply a color filter, draw in a single element, have a different AI change some details, etc. Music: Subtly change the tempo or add one minor audio effect.) Step three: Copyright the work as something "made by a human with AI assistance." If challenged, step four: Claim that humans have been making works of art with all available technical means from the dawn of civilization, and that to draw an arbitrary line in the sand at assisted generation is unprincipled. And, basically, lmao at the courts, as usual.

Tuna-Fish 3y ago
The court can rule that you have copyright only on the modifications you did, and if someone can extract the underlying AI-generated picture, they can freely use it.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
  > if someone can extract the underlying AI-generated picture, they can freely use it. If the AI generated portion exists nowhere else, and if it's not _obviously_ an AI-generated work, how would a court know what's generated and what's been modified?
  - __loam 3y ago
    It's fun to see people who are unfamiliar with the discovery process in law.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
skybrian 3y ago
They’ll likely just decide it’s not different enough. Courts aren’t computers; they can look at intent. A classic essay: What colour are your bits? https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- nerdponx 3y ago
  The recent Warhol Foundation vs Goldsmith ruling should make this clear. Warhol basically did just put some color filters on a photo by Goldsmith, and the Supreme Court ruled that no, that's not allowed, it's not transformative enough to be fair use, that's still Goldsmith's photo.
  - zuminator 3y ago
    That particular ruling was able to be made because the original work was available to make a comparison with. However, it's well established in the US that the author of an adaptive work is generally entitled to copyright over the modified portions.[0] So a work merely has to be presented as an human-authored adaptation of an AI template. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brookst 3y ago
> unprincipled > lmao at the courts I see this a lot on HN: the idea that courts rule based on principles. It’s a strange viewpoint. There are courts of law. They rule based on law. To the extent law is messy (it is), court rulings will be messy. There isn’t a court in the world that would make a ruling based on your, my, or anyone else’s principles.
- asu_thomas 3y ago
  > I see this a lot on HN It goes right along with the belief that capitalism is a naturalistic ideal, as opposed to a temporary state of societal organization maintained for the benefit of a few people. Also, for the reasons you give, copyright itself is devoid of principled logic.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Until capitalism collapses, which is inevitable if we believe Marx's thoughts on the matter, copyright is an important way to protect and pay people who make things so they don't starve.
    - nfoz 3y ago
      What? Capitalism is just fine without the artificial notion of copyright. We can pay labourers for their time producing works. We don't need pay-per-copy.
      - astrange 3y ago
        Artists tend to be very upset when they make a work for hire, it gets popular decades later, and they don't get any royalties.
        __loam 3y ago
        Big reason why the writer's guild is currently on strike. Super naive view that people who make stuff shouldn't continue to be compensated if someone is getting value from that work. That's part of why programming can be so lucrative.
__loam 3y ago
My understanding of how this works is that you own a copyright on the modifications to the original image, but not on the original work produced by the AI. The way you're explaining it isn't consistent with how the law may actually be applied.
randyrand 3y ago
Even easier, use a physical camera and take a very good photo of your laptop screen. You'll own the copyright of the photograph.
Jevon23 3y ago
Do you honestly believe that legal thinkers haven’t been dealing with these types of arguments and problems for centuries? I mean really. Do you think you’re proposing an original idea here?

Tuna-Fish 3y ago

The court can rule that you have copyright only on the modifications you did, and if someone can extract the underlying AI-generated picture, they can freely use it.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
> if someone can extract the underlying AI-generated picture, they can freely use it. If the AI generated portion exists nowhere else, and if it's not _obviously_ an AI-generated work, how would a court know what's generated and what's been modified?
- __loam 3y ago
  It's fun to see people who are unfamiliar with the discovery process in law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

skybrian 3y ago

They’ll likely just decide it’s not different enough. Courts aren’t computers; they can look at intent. A classic essay: What colour are your bits? https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

nerdponx 3y ago
The recent Warhol Foundation vs Goldsmith ruling should make this clear. Warhol basically did just put some color filters on a photo by Goldsmith, and the Supreme Court ruled that no, that's not allowed, it's not transformative enough to be fair use, that's still Goldsmith's photo.
- zuminator 3y ago
  That particular ruling was able to be made because the original work was available to make a comparison with. However, it's well established in the US that the author of an adaptive work is generally entitled to copyright over the modified portions.[0] So a work merely has to be presented as an human-authored adaptation of an AI template. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

brookst 3y ago

> unprincipled > lmao at the courts I see this a lot on HN: the idea that courts rule based on principles. It’s a strange viewpoint. There are courts of law. They rule based on law. To the extent law is messy (it is), court rulings will be messy. There isn’t a court in the world that would make a ruling based on your, my, or anyone else’s principles.

asu_thomas 3y ago
> I see this a lot on HN It goes right along with the belief that capitalism is a naturalistic ideal, as opposed to a temporary state of societal organization maintained for the benefit of a few people. Also, for the reasons you give, copyright itself is devoid of principled logic.
- __loam 3y ago
  Until capitalism collapses, which is inevitable if we believe Marx's thoughts on the matter, copyright is an important way to protect and pay people who make things so they don't starve.
  - nfoz 3y ago
    What? Capitalism is just fine without the artificial notion of copyright. We can pay labourers for their time producing works. We don't need pay-per-copy.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Artists tend to be very upset when they make a work for hire, it gets popular decades later, and they don't get any royalties.
      - __loam 3y ago
        Big reason why the writer's guild is currently on strike. Super naive view that people who make stuff shouldn't continue to be compensated if someone is getting value from that work. That's part of why programming can be so lucrative.

__loam 3y ago

My understanding of how this works is that you own a copyright on the modifications to the original image, but not on the original work produced by the AI. The way you're explaining it isn't consistent with how the law may actually be applied.

randyrand 3y ago

Even easier, use a physical camera and take a very good photo of your laptop screen. You'll own the copyright of the photograph.

Jevon23 3y ago

Do you honestly believe that legal thinkers haven’t been dealing with these types of arguments and problems for centuries? I mean really. Do you think you’re proposing an original idea here?