3 ms·

>you know how the pohotgraph will turn out So if I stick out the camera from a corner then I don't own the copyright because I don't know how the photograph wi

by GaggiX 3y ago

>you know how the pohotgraph will turn out So if I stick out the camera from a corner then I don't own the copyright because I don't know how the photograph will turn out, if that's not case then I should own the copyright of an AI generated image because in both cases I have an approximate understanding of what the image would be.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
With AI, you control the idea but you have no understanding of the creative expression that will result from entering a prompt.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  With the simplest, one-shot, prompt-only workflow, sure, that might be a reasonable approximation of the truth.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  With just a text prompt, no. But there are an increasing number of ways to use human decision-making to strongly and evidently control the outputs (LoRAs, ControlNet, Img2Img) that haven't been legally tested yet.
- lowdest 3y ago
  This applies only to under-specified prompting. I usually go in with a finished image in mind, and use very long prompts and inpainting to make it real. It can take dozens of images to get the prompt to reflect what I have in mind, then several more iterations to polish it. While I can technically produce several images per minute, I usually spend about 30 minutes to 1 hour to get the output I want, and more if it's going to be an extra large or complicated piece. This is very much like the "is electronic music real music?" debates when people can quickly throw together some presets and hit play.
  - mackek2 3y ago
    You have copyright ownership of the work you produced, the prompt (under specified or not really), but not the output of the model.
danShumway 3y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-p... TLDR it's untested in United States court, but yes, the same principles apply. You very well might not own the copyright on that street-corner photo. There is no way of getting around the human authorship and creativity requirement. There's no loophole that AI can sneak though. If AI output does become copyrightable, it will only be because of arguments that the controlling of that AI is sufficiently creative and deliberate to pass the minimum threshold required by law and the outcome isn't a random or uncontrolled result. Saying that it's "just like pressing buttons on a camera" does you no favors, if photography was just pressing a button then it wouldn't be copyrightable. And in fact, there was an 1884 Supreme Court challenge over photography copyright that was predicated exactly on the argument that photography was a purely mechanical reconstruction of an existing scene (https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/09/historic-court-cases-that-helped-shape-scope-of-copyright-protections/ https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/09/historic-court-cases...). The argument was rejected not because purely mechanical reconstructions are copyrightable, but because the court disagreed and said that photography was both an act of human creativity and that it had a controlled outcome, similar to "writing" or "engraving". And note that a critical component of "writing" or "engraving" is intent and control. When you write down something on a page, you get the result that you intended to put on the page; you control the "words" that appear. An important question when discussing AI copyright is what the threshold is where we can say that use is actually controlling the AI. A vague prompt might not qualify, an extremely specific prompt that is itself a creative expression might? A more guided process might? (although it's not certain if this would cover the resulting image or just the prompt itself). This is all untested in current law.

by GaggiX 3y ago

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

With AI, you control the idea but you have no understanding of the creative expression that will result from entering a prompt.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
With the simplest, one-shot, prompt-only workflow, sure, that might be a reasonable approximation of the truth.
minimaxir 3y ago
With just a text prompt, no. But there are an increasing number of ways to use human decision-making to strongly and evidently control the outputs (LoRAs, ControlNet, Img2Img) that haven't been legally tested yet.
lowdest 3y ago
This applies only to under-specified prompting. I usually go in with a finished image in mind, and use very long prompts and inpainting to make it real. It can take dozens of images to get the prompt to reflect what I have in mind, then several more iterations to polish it. While I can technically produce several images per minute, I usually spend about 30 minutes to 1 hour to get the output I want, and more if it's going to be an extra large or complicated piece. This is very much like the "is electronic music real music?" debates when people can quickly throw together some presets and hit play.
- mackek2 3y ago
  You have copyright ownership of the work you produced, the prompt (under specified or not really), but not the output of the model.

danShumway 3y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-p... TLDR it's untested in United States court, but yes, the same principles apply. You very well might not own the copyright on that street-corner photo. There is no way of getting around the human authorship and creativity requirement. There's no loophole that AI can sneak though. If AI output does become copyrightable, it will only be because of arguments that the controlling of that AI is sufficiently creative and deliberate to pass the minimum threshold required by law and the outcome isn't a random or uncontrolled result. Saying that it's "just like pressing buttons on a camera" does you no favors, if photography was just pressing a button then it wouldn't be copyrightable. And in fact, there was an 1884 Supreme Court challenge over photography copyright that was predicated exactly on the argument that photography was a purely mechanical reconstruction of an existing scene (https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/09/historic-court-cases-that-helped-shape-scope-of-copyright-protections/ https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2020/09/historic-court-cases...). The argument was rejected not because purely mechanical reconstructions are copyrightable, but because the court disagreed and said that photography was both an act of human creativity and that it had a controlled outcome, similar to "writing" or "engraving". And note that a critical component of "writing" or "engraving" is intent and control. When you write down something on a page, you get the result that you intended to put on the page; you control the "words" that appear. An important question when discussing AI copyright is what the threshold is where we can say that use is actually controlling the AI. A vague prompt might not qualify, an extremely specific prompt that is itself a creative expression might? A more guided process might? (although it's not certain if this would cover the resulting image or just the prompt itself). This is all untested in current law.