6 ms·

> “If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in commercial projects, contact us.” If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can the

> “If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in commercial projects, contact us.” If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this?

caturopath 3y ago
> If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this? We don't have precedent here. Whether a person using a website with a generative AI tool counts as having a non-human creator isn't clear, and it seems to me like the answer is that it does have a human creator. Using a horse-hair brush to paint a painting doesn't mean that the painting was created by a horse and isn't subject to copyright. We'll have to find out eventually whether over a dozen settings, some with a gazillion options, and multiple freeform inputs counts as 'not created by a human'.
- wredue 3y ago
  Was there not just precedent set for this? The horse hair example is nonsense. One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. But the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. And this is how the horse hair sample is stupid.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Was there not just precedent set for this? No, there was a recent case where someone tried to claim an AI as an author for copyright and themselves as owner via work for hire, where it was ruled invalid because AI can’t be an author under copyright law; the ruling was explicit that it was not addressing copyrightability by humans of images they create using an AI generator as a tool, only the claim of copyright with AI as the author.
  - caturopath 3y ago
    > Was there not just precedent set for this? No. > One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. This doesn't seem to address what I took to be the relevant part of IP law - that non-human authors don't create copyrighted works. It was a reductio ad absurdum for minimal non-human involvement. It's probably not the case that a monkey stealing your camera and taking a selfie creates a copyrighted work. It's probably the case that a frog triggering a motion sensor you set up for nature photography does. It's certain painting normally with a horsehair brush does. Your remarks seem to make some sort of moral appeal, but I'm not sure how it ties into the legal concerns I thought was being raised. > the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. I'm not sure what "blending" means here or what the actual theories of generative art ML systems and of humans here are. To call what the former do "blending" requires such a broad definition I can't tell you if humans are blending as well (at least some of the time, at least materially) when creating works.
jejeyyy77 3y ago
they can't.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gumballindie 3y ago
Question is why would anyone want to use this since it's so buggy.
TehCorwiz 3y ago
Adobe Fusion 360 education edition limits what I can create with it to non commercial uses only. Despite me owning the copyright for what I produce using it. I don’t think you have it right.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Its terms of use of the site, you are offered use of their geneator in exchange for agreeing not to use it commercially. If you use it commercially, you are breaking those terms, which they will argue are an enforceable contract. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  But what if you use the generator, post the image in an allowed non-commercial context, and then I copy that image and use it commercially? I have no contract with the AI generator company, and you didn't violate yours; it would seem to me that the violation involved is a copyright violation.
  - behringer 3y ago
    100 percent legal to use the generated images as freely as you like in that case.
phyzome 3y ago
As of now, copyright of AI-generated images is not a settled matter. But I think smart money is on the courts coming down on the side of copyright being applicable. (If you're thinking of the recent court case, no, that was unrelated; some guy was trying to pull a stunt and the court did not actually rule on the thing you think they did.)
- joshgachnang 3y ago
  Do you have a link or something re: your second point for those of us who might not know?
  - phyzome 3y ago
    No. But courts have continued to rule that new technologies allow humans to create works of art that fall under copyright, and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so.
Lockal 3y ago
Legal consequences of using photos of identifiable people are not limited by copyright[1]. For example, it is quite easy to assume that photos from this service will be used for political defamation, among other things. How could they enforce it? For example, by embedding a steganographic tag, by which human rights activists will be able to identify the author of the picture. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_id...
Philpax 3y ago
There haven't been any solid rulings on the copyright validity of human-driven AI generation yet. There have been a few cases, but they've been muddied by complicating factors (not a human doing the generation - that is, autonomous generation - or the generation being used as a base work for something else). Additionally, even if there's no copyright, the terms of service may still apply separately (see OpenAI disallowing training a competitor model on output from OpenAI models)
- basch 3y ago
  A copyright is a government granted monopoly. The copyright office has stated they wont grant monopoly privilege for ai generated art. The courts thus far have backed them up. I would say it doesnt look good at the moment for to try and enforce ownership of something ai generated, it would be an uphill battle, and the default/null position would be that the art is free to use, and unprotected by government.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The copyright office has stated they wont grant monopoly privilege for ai generated art. No, they haven't. They've said that if the only human input is a text prompt, then it lacks the required human creativity to be eligible for copyright protection.
    - tomcam 3y ago
      Not trying to be combative, but I don't see the difference?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Real AI imagegen workflows very often have more input from the human creating the image than a text prompt.
        basch 3y ago
wrs 3y ago
They could do it with a click-through license agreement, but they don’t have one of those either. So it seems to have the legal force of a polite request. (IANAL)
- acosmism 3y ago
  I am thinking out loud so here it goes - How will they have the bandwidth to identify and pursue every person using a generated image in commercial use. i respect and understand legalese around terms of service copyright etc but - seriously. how would any company just starting in this space enforce “terms and services”? serious question. Until there is a concrete and - let me emphasize, “cheap and generally available” solution to legally moderating AI generated content - feels to me like it’s the wild west. be real
sudobash1 3y ago
There are still terms of use, which can dictate how you are allowed to use a website. And there are watermarks in the corners.
- notpachet 3y ago
  We can probably AI those out.
disembiggen 3y ago
if there were, globally, no copyright at all in any "ai" generated images, and one confidently thought there never would be, then simply using the images, in the case that one only needed one or two images, would probably be fine. however if there were large nations in which the law was still in flux or unclear, or one wanted to generate new images on the fly without fear of rate-limiting or refusal of service, then one would potentially wish to work out an arrangement.
HPsquared 3y ago
Does this apply to any photo taken by a camera with "AI" filters? There must be a line somewhere.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The current line is not based on a maximum AI input but a minimum human input. You aimed the camera, your copyright. You have an AI just create fake pictures and post them without someone in the loop, no copyright. The questions are mostly about how little you have to do.
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    While that may be the status today, I feel this is in no way settled.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
There are lots of tools that don’t have copyrightable output that require commercial licensing to use.

> “If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in commercial projects, contact us.” If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this?

caturopath 3y ago

> If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this? We don't have precedent here. Whether a person using a website with a generative AI tool counts as having a non-human creator isn't clear, and it seems to me like the answer is that it does have a human creator. Using a horse-hair brush to paint a painting doesn't mean that the painting was created by a horse and isn't subject to copyright. We'll have to find out eventually whether over a dozen settings, some with a gazillion options, and multiple freeform inputs counts as 'not created by a human'.

wredue 3y ago
Was there not just precedent set for this? The horse hair example is nonsense. One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. But the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. And this is how the horse hair sample is stupid.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Was there not just precedent set for this? No, there was a recent case where someone tried to claim an AI as an author for copyright and themselves as owner via work for hire, where it was ruled invalid because AI can’t be an author under copyright law; the ruling was explicit that it was not addressing copyrightability by humans of images they create using an AI generator as a tool, only the claim of copyright with AI as the author.
- caturopath 3y ago
  > Was there not just precedent set for this? No. > One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. This doesn't seem to address what I took to be the relevant part of IP law - that non-human authors don't create copyrighted works. It was a reductio ad absurdum for minimal non-human involvement. It's probably not the case that a monkey stealing your camera and taking a selfie creates a copyrighted work. It's probably the case that a frog triggering a motion sensor you set up for nature photography does. It's certain painting normally with a horsehair brush does. Your remarks seem to make some sort of moral appeal, but I'm not sure how it ties into the legal concerns I thought was being raised. > the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. I'm not sure what "blending" means here or what the actual theories of generative art ML systems and of humans here are. To call what the former do "blending" requires such a broad definition I can't tell you if humans are blending as well (at least some of the time, at least materially) when creating works.

jejeyyy77 3y ago

they can't.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gumballindie 3y ago

Question is why would anyone want to use this since it's so buggy.

TehCorwiz 3y ago

Adobe Fusion 360 education edition limits what I can create with it to non commercial uses only. Despite me owning the copyright for what I produce using it. I don’t think you have it right.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Its terms of use of the site, you are offered use of their geneator in exchange for agreeing not to use it commercially. If you use it commercially, you are breaking those terms, which they will argue are an enforceable contract. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
But what if you use the generator, post the image in an allowed non-commercial context, and then I copy that image and use it commercially? I have no contract with the AI generator company, and you didn't violate yours; it would seem to me that the violation involved is a copyright violation.
- behringer 3y ago
  100 percent legal to use the generated images as freely as you like in that case.

phyzome 3y ago

As of now, copyright of AI-generated images is not a settled matter. But I think smart money is on the courts coming down on the side of copyright being applicable. (If you're thinking of the recent court case, no, that was unrelated; some guy was trying to pull a stunt and the court did not actually rule on the thing you think they did.)

joshgachnang 3y ago
Do you have a link or something re: your second point for those of us who might not know?
- phyzome 3y ago
  No. But courts have continued to rule that new technologies allow humans to create works of art that fall under copyright, and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so.

Lockal 3y ago

Legal consequences of using photos of identifiable people are not limited by copyright[1]. For example, it is quite easy to assume that photos from this service will be used for political defamation, among other things. How could they enforce it? For example, by embedding a steganographic tag, by which human rights activists will be able to identify the author of the picture. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_id...

Philpax 3y ago

There haven't been any solid rulings on the copyright validity of human-driven AI generation yet. There have been a few cases, but they've been muddied by complicating factors (not a human doing the generation - that is, autonomous generation - or the generation being used as a base work for something else). Additionally, even if there's no copyright, the terms of service may still apply separately (see OpenAI disallowing training a competitor model on output from OpenAI models)

basch 3y ago
A copyright is a government granted monopoly. The copyright office has stated they wont grant monopoly privilege for ai generated art. The courts thus far have backed them up. I would say it doesnt look good at the moment for to try and enforce ownership of something ai generated, it would be an uphill battle, and the default/null position would be that the art is free to use, and unprotected by government.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The copyright office has stated they wont grant monopoly privilege for ai generated art. No, they haven't. They've said that if the only human input is a text prompt, then it lacks the required human creativity to be eligible for copyright protection.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    Not trying to be combative, but I don't see the difference?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Real AI imagegen workflows very often have more input from the human creating the image than a text prompt.
      - basch 3y ago

wrs 3y ago

They could do it with a click-through license agreement, but they don’t have one of those either. So it seems to have the legal force of a polite request. (IANAL)

acosmism 3y ago
I am thinking out loud so here it goes - How will they have the bandwidth to identify and pursue every person using a generated image in commercial use. i respect and understand legalese around terms of service copyright etc but - seriously. how would any company just starting in this space enforce “terms and services”? serious question. Until there is a concrete and - let me emphasize, “cheap and generally available” solution to legally moderating AI generated content - feels to me like it’s the wild west. be real

sudobash1 3y ago

There are still terms of use, which can dictate how you are allowed to use a website. And there are watermarks in the corners.

notpachet 3y ago
We can probably AI those out.

disembiggen 3y ago

if there were, globally, no copyright at all in any "ai" generated images, and one confidently thought there never would be, then simply using the images, in the case that one only needed one or two images, would probably be fine. however if there were large nations in which the law was still in flux or unclear, or one wanted to generate new images on the fly without fear of rate-limiting or refusal of service, then one would potentially wish to work out an arrangement.

HPsquared 3y ago

Does this apply to any photo taken by a camera with "AI" filters? There must be a line somewhere.

HWR_14 3y ago
The current line is not based on a maximum AI input but a minimum human input. You aimed the camera, your copyright. You have an AI just create fake pictures and post them without someone in the loop, no copyright. The questions are mostly about how little you have to do.
- pbjtime 3y ago
  While that may be the status today, I feel this is in no way settled.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

There are lots of tools that don’t have copyrightable output that require commercial licensing to use.