11 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.