7 ms·

Just spitballing here, because this is very fun to think about. If I reproduce the likeness of Mickey Mouse via an AI, then because an AI made it, is there no

by juris 3y ago

Just spitballing here, because this is very fun to think about. If I reproduce the likeness of Mickey Mouse via an AI, then because an AI made it, is there no defensible claim from Disney to own the copyright? That doesn't make intuitive sense, as we 'sort of know' that Disney owns the likeness. Meanwhile, if I produce one single image that I own via copyright, and feed it to the AI as a prompt and receive a derivative of that image back, per this ruling I would not own the proceeds. It makes some sense-- an AI made it, and further, I did not produce enough instances of this art and the branding behind it for its likeness to be sufficiently "mine". I don't quite own the "mindshare", so people would not recognize the brand as being anybody's, really. So this is different from the way that Mickey Mouse is recognized. But what if a bunch of artists were to band together to create a license of sorts for the use of an AI they altogether build? Suppose they collectively own a portfolio of copyrighted materials, characters, etc, that they use to feed the AI. Wouldn't they own the proceeds of the likenesses produced by the AI, as would provide legal justification for their licensing of the AI, and to defend their collective works in the same way that Disney can?

coolspot 3y ago
I believe what this ruling actually tries to defeat is an automated bulk art generation. Just fire some H100 in a loop iterating over various ~random prompts, save it all on a website and then sue anyone producing anything remotely similar. Problem is, bad actors will say all of this art was generated by a human with mere AI assistance.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  I think it's the only logical assumption you can make when AI dide not request copyright clearance. Unless an AI generator proves it owns all related copyright material, how can it claim the output under the same law. It's basic CC ally a copyright blackhole. The laws of copyright doesn't survive.
- juris 3y ago
  God, I haven't even considered that. Design trolling! Prompt for an apple, iterate over all fashionable logo design styles, implicitly own the copyright all of them, then sit and wait. You're more likely to get a 'hit' as brand logos tend to be simple. I would imagine that context matters a lot in trademark law and in design art though, since there's a lot of namespace collision in that domain. For there to be a violation of trademark or copyright, there needs to be a material loss or harm on the part of the owner of the copyrighted material, and it needs to be in the same space that the owner operates in. Like if I generate a banana brand logo for my Banana Plumbing Co., and your AI generated similar banana line art prior, unless you were using it for plumbing it would (probably) be hard to enforce in court. So towards preventing bulk image generation and trolling, I don't know if this ruling was especially necessary. leaving the disadvantage of this ruling in that it encourages people to use AI as an excuse to sell like art? :D can't say I hate it though.
jy1 3y ago
Imagine you're an human artist, and you painted Mickey Mouse (let say playing pickeball). Disney doesn't own the copyright to your artwork, but of course they own the copyright to _Mickey Mouse_ (the character), but that doesn't entitle them to all art with Mickey Mouse in it.
- juris 3y ago
  I think it does though if you try to sell it... I mean Disney does occasionally go after artists selling baby yoda plushies that have been cropping up all over Etsy. Part of that is how busted copyright claims systems are, but they suuurely have some legal right to the likeness of yoda himself, especially in plushie context. Surely?
  - jy1 3y ago
    Just because Disney can stop you from commercializing something does not mean they own the copyright of the entire work. Suppose you make a Yoda painting. You do not own the rights of _Yoda_, but Disney does not own rights of your painting, either. If you make a painting of Yoda, Disney can't commercialize and sell it either. In this case, Disney owns some rights, and you the artist have rights. But it doesn't mean Disney "owns the copyright" to your work. They cannot publish/commercialize your exact Yoda painting and put it on t-shirts to sell.
    - jy1 3y ago
      An analogy for software engineers: Scenario: The XYZ Algorithm Let's say you are a software developer working on an extensive library that deals with data processing. You come across a small, but particularly efficient algorithm developed by Company A, which they've shared on their blog. This algorithm, called the XYZ Algorithm, is explicitly mentioned to be freely usable but retains the copyright to Company A. You decide to use this XYZ Algorithm as a component within your larger library. You integrate it as-is, without modifying the original code of the XYZ Algorithm. Implications: Rights on the XYZ Algorithm: Even though you've integrated the XYZ Algorithm into your library, Company A retains the copyright on that specific algorithm. If they've specified particular licensing terms or conditions for use (like attribution), you'd have to abide by them. Rights on the Entire Library: The rest of your library, which you developed independently, remains your intellectual property. Company A's copyright doesn't extend to the whole library, just the specific portion that constitutes the XYZ Algorithm. Distribution and Licensing: If you decide to distribute or sell your library: You'd have to ensure you comply with any licensing terms or conditions attached to the XYZ Algorithm. For the parts of the library you own, you can choose any licensing model you like. Just because Company A can stop you from commercializing your entire Library, does not mean they own rights to your entire Library.
freejazz 3y ago
>If I reproduce the likeness of Mickey Mouse via an AI, then because an AI made it, is there no defensible claim from Disney to own the copyright? That doesn't make intuitive sense, as we 'sort of know' that Disney owns the likeness. Disney owns their own copyright in Mickey Mouse, it has nothing to do with them owning a copyright you claim. Copyright infringement is when you make a(n illegal) copy of something that was already copyrighted. >But what if a bunch of artists were to band together to create a license of sorts for the use of an AI they altogether build? They can license it all they want to, but they can't stop anyone from copying the work produced by the AI because there is no copyright in that work. >defend their collective works in the same way that Disney can? No, because the only people infringing would be themselves.
- juris 3y ago
  Interesante: so I would consider AI to be necessarily transformative. The idea is that the art it produces could never be a copy, because of the effect the rest of its data corpus has on the output. There are several layers of transformation, feedback loops, etc. I don't know exactly how it all works (I'm not an AI engineer) so there's a lot of hand waving here. So to understand this: 1. In a world where someone owns the rights to the Mona Lisa, if I ask it to produce Mona Lisa as exactly as it can, and it produces the Mona Lisa (uncannily so, in layers of paint), can it be said to be a copy? Was there a violation? Or, per this ruling and by virtue of being produced by an AI, should that work be free to sell? 2. If I ask it to produce 'Mockey Mouse', and it produces a likeness uncannily approaching Mickey Mouse, should that work be free to sell without claims otherwise?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    1. It's a copy. You described copying. You can't sell something that's a copy of another person's work (with some exceptions). That's the basic principle of copyright infringement. The ruling doesn't stand for the principle that anything created by an AI can be free to sell. It stands for the proposition that an AI can't obtain a copyright because it isn't a creative author. Can I sell homemade VHS copies of the Seinfeld DVDs? Should I be able to? 2. An AI can't obtain a copyright, so, assuming it's not a work that violates an existing copyright, it would not be copyrightable.

by juris 3y ago

coolspot 3y ago

I believe what this ruling actually tries to defeat is an automated bulk art generation. Just fire some H100 in a loop iterating over various ~random prompts, save it all on a website and then sue anyone producing anything remotely similar. Problem is, bad actors will say all of this art was generated by a human with mere AI assistance.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cyanydeez 3y ago
I think it's the only logical assumption you can make when AI dide not request copyright clearance. Unless an AI generator proves it owns all related copyright material, how can it claim the output under the same law. It's basic CC ally a copyright blackhole. The laws of copyright doesn't survive.
juris 3y ago
God, I haven't even considered that. Design trolling! Prompt for an apple, iterate over all fashionable logo design styles, implicitly own the copyright all of them, then sit and wait. You're more likely to get a 'hit' as brand logos tend to be simple. I would imagine that context matters a lot in trademark law and in design art though, since there's a lot of namespace collision in that domain. For there to be a violation of trademark or copyright, there needs to be a material loss or harm on the part of the owner of the copyrighted material, and it needs to be in the same space that the owner operates in. Like if I generate a banana brand logo for my Banana Plumbing Co., and your AI generated similar banana line art prior, unless you were using it for plumbing it would (probably) be hard to enforce in court. So towards preventing bulk image generation and trolling, I don't know if this ruling was especially necessary. leaving the disadvantage of this ruling in that it encourages people to use AI as an excuse to sell like art? :D can't say I hate it though.

jy1 3y ago

Imagine you're an human artist, and you painted Mickey Mouse (let say playing pickeball). Disney doesn't own the copyright to your artwork, but of course they own the copyright to _Mickey Mouse_ (the character), but that doesn't entitle them to all art with Mickey Mouse in it.

juris 3y ago
I think it does though if you try to sell it... I mean Disney does occasionally go after artists selling baby yoda plushies that have been cropping up all over Etsy. Part of that is how busted copyright claims systems are, but they suuurely have some legal right to the likeness of yoda himself, especially in plushie context. Surely?
- jy1 3y ago
  Just because Disney can stop you from commercializing something does not mean they own the copyright of the entire work. Suppose you make a Yoda painting. You do not own the rights of _Yoda_, but Disney does not own rights of your painting, either. If you make a painting of Yoda, Disney can't commercialize and sell it either. In this case, Disney owns some rights, and you the artist have rights. But it doesn't mean Disney "owns the copyright" to your work. They cannot publish/commercialize your exact Yoda painting and put it on t-shirts to sell.
  - jy1 3y ago
    An analogy for software engineers: Scenario: The XYZ Algorithm Let's say you are a software developer working on an extensive library that deals with data processing. You come across a small, but particularly efficient algorithm developed by Company A, which they've shared on their blog. This algorithm, called the XYZ Algorithm, is explicitly mentioned to be freely usable but retains the copyright to Company A. You decide to use this XYZ Algorithm as a component within your larger library. You integrate it as-is, without modifying the original code of the XYZ Algorithm. Implications: Rights on the XYZ Algorithm: Even though you've integrated the XYZ Algorithm into your library, Company A retains the copyright on that specific algorithm. If they've specified particular licensing terms or conditions for use (like attribution), you'd have to abide by them. Rights on the Entire Library: The rest of your library, which you developed independently, remains your intellectual property. Company A's copyright doesn't extend to the whole library, just the specific portion that constitutes the XYZ Algorithm. Distribution and Licensing: If you decide to distribute or sell your library: You'd have to ensure you comply with any licensing terms or conditions attached to the XYZ Algorithm. For the parts of the library you own, you can choose any licensing model you like. Just because Company A can stop you from commercializing your entire Library, does not mean they own rights to your entire Library.

freejazz 3y ago

>If I reproduce the likeness of Mickey Mouse via an AI, then because an AI made it, is there no defensible claim from Disney to own the copyright? That doesn't make intuitive sense, as we 'sort of know' that Disney owns the likeness. Disney owns their own copyright in Mickey Mouse, it has nothing to do with them owning a copyright you claim. Copyright infringement is when you make a(n illegal) copy of something that was already copyrighted. >But what if a bunch of artists were to band together to create a license of sorts for the use of an AI they altogether build? They can license it all they want to, but they can't stop anyone from copying the work produced by the AI because there is no copyright in that work. >defend their collective works in the same way that Disney can? No, because the only people infringing would be themselves.

juris 3y ago
Interesante: so I would consider AI to be necessarily transformative. The idea is that the art it produces could never be a copy, because of the effect the rest of its data corpus has on the output. There are several layers of transformation, feedback loops, etc. I don't know exactly how it all works (I'm not an AI engineer) so there's a lot of hand waving here. So to understand this: 1. In a world where someone owns the rights to the Mona Lisa, if I ask it to produce Mona Lisa as exactly as it can, and it produces the Mona Lisa (uncannily so, in layers of paint), can it be said to be a copy? Was there a violation? Or, per this ruling and by virtue of being produced by an AI, should that work be free to sell? 2. If I ask it to produce 'Mockey Mouse', and it produces a likeness uncannily approaching Mickey Mouse, should that work be free to sell without claims otherwise?
- freejazz 3y ago
  1. It's a copy. You described copying. You can't sell something that's a copy of another person's work (with some exceptions). That's the basic principle of copyright infringement. The ruling doesn't stand for the principle that anything created by an AI can be free to sell. It stands for the proposition that an AI can't obtain a copyright because it isn't a creative author. Can I sell homemade VHS copies of the Seinfeld DVDs? Should I be able to? 2. An AI can't obtain a copyright, so, assuming it's not a work that violates an existing copyright, it would not be copyrightable.