3 ms·
AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge
- teddyh 3y agoPreviously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37191317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37191317>
- skilled 3y agoThis was the original submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37188791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37188791 (167 points | 22 hours ago | 112 comments)
- hknmtt 3y agoGood. The USA patent law is utterly retarded. Most people probably forgot how Apple sued Samsung for round edges on their phones. Or Disney being able to copyright stories for 70 years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elric 3y agoPatents and Copyrights are two different things. They're both part of Intellectual Property. Patents are granted after a process (a patent application) for "inventions". Copyright is granted automagically to the author of a work (art, writing, whatever). Copyright (and patent) durations differ per jurisdiction, but they often go beyond the lifetime of the author. Which seems silly. Not being able to slap a copyright on AI generated content may or may not make sense. Someone wrote the prompt which may be subject to copyright, though I guess it could be considered to be a recipe, and recipes after often not subject to copyright.
- hgsgm 3y agoTrashy language appears correlated to low-information and muddled thinking. Neither of those claims are accurate.
- causality0 3y agoRulings like this may be the only thing that stops AI from completely impoverishing every single artistic professional.
- elric 3y agoWhy would this prevent impoverishing anyone? If anything, wouldn't this result in fewer people getting paid for art?
- tete 3y agoAlternatively: Creativity and originality, UBI, etc. And yes, as a programmer I think the same thing about AIs and programmers. My hope is that if anything we get is paying the people to do the same thing for the billionth time.
- ChatGTP 3y ago[flagged]
- rememberlenny 3y agoPro tip: Read the actual court decision and not just the headlines. Tech law journalism is a telephone game that usually distorts what was actually said. People then form strong opinions on the headlines. Chaos ensues. Example: “AI art cannot be copyrighted - US Federal Judge” That’s not what the judge decided. The decision said you can’t assign a copyright to an AI. This doesn’t mean the thing you create with AI can’t be copyrighted. You write a prompt, press a button, cause something to be created, etc., and you’re the author not the AI. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919666-thalervperlmutter?responsive=1&title=1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919666-thalervperl... From @AndrewMayne on Twitter
- tete 3y agoThat makes a lot more sense. Else what prevents you from saying that Photoshop with all it bazilion function isn't an AI and therefor you can't copyright it.
- jojobas 3y agoWorst case, load it in GIMP, set brush to 1% opacity and give it a couple of strokes. Boom, bona fide copyrighted work.
- hgsgm 3y agoTerrible reporting from Verge and Hollywood Reported. As has always been true, automated or animal works absent human involvement cannot be copyrighted. The requirement for human involvement is a very low bar, and the copyright office and judges only reject copyrights from people pressing test cases where they explicitly disclaim human involvement in the work. There is no threat to Hollywood or anyone who uses AI in their own creative workflow, only to people who simply turn on a machine and intentionally blindly claim copyright on its output.