3 ms·

The product of your human work is the input, not the ai generated image. You are merely commissioning some system to do the work on which you have very little a

The product of your human work is the input, not the ai generated image. You are merely commissioning some system to do the work on which you have very little actual future authorship except the commission. For art we don't grant the copyright to someone commissioning work, they have to negotiate with the artist for that. But your artist is not human, so cannot create copyrightable works, so you can't even bargain for the right. Your copyrightable prompt just created a public domain result. As for your comparison with photoshop, you have it backwards. The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them. Just like other works that are a mix of public domain and copyrighted elements, you can only copyright the human authored work. It's like making a comic with AI pictures - the images themselves are public domain (assuming you haven't forgotten to license the use of those works in your computer system that generates the image for you), you assembling the work into a comic is what you own the copyright to. the characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain, no matter if you prompted all of them.

stale2002 3y ago
> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them. In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected. The courts disagree with you though. Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the work using Photoshop. It is the computer printing out the picture using bits and bytes. That's not a human! That a computer program named photoshop! Then follow the exact line of logic from there. > characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain, We know this to be false though, because a character created by Photoshop is done on a computer though. Therefore, it is clear that yes a machine can be used in the process, unless you are going to claim that Photoshop is not protected because it is run on a computer.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  I used words very carefully. It depends on the level of human authorship. If you use a tool to correct some pixels thats directed by a human closely, no thats not a problem. If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship of those parts of the image. You could then go in and author changes to the work that you could further add to your copyright. But you would never change the copyright status of the stuff authored by a machine. You're using 'Photoshop' on a naive level without looking at the most important element - how much authorship is the human having. You can basically 'hand paint' a picture in photoshop, or you can use the ai tools and have almost no authorship. Photoshop is a program not a method.
  - evilduck 3y ago
    You can "hand paint" in Photoshop, but you can also assemble collages composed of bits and pieces of other copyrighted works and create a result that is still copyrightable. Why is the latter currently legal in your opinion?
    - stonogo 3y ago
      If you do not license the "bits and pieces" then the courts will find you in violation of their copyrights. Pretending AI is different is bizarre out-of-touch "but I'm so special" solipsism.
      - evilduck 3y ago
        I believe you are wrong there. Transformative art requires no licensing as long as it falls under fair use. I can quote a book in my article without licensing the quote from the author. I can clip eyebrows off of copyrighted magazine portraits and assemble them into a eyebrow version of some famous art piece and never have to license a thing. I can take screenshots of copyrighted YouTube videos and assemble a "shirts of YouTubers" that I lasso tool'd and collaged together and create an entirely new copyrighted work without having to license a thing. I can take a photo of a street which contains an art gallery and copyrighted art can appear in my photo without having to license anything from the artist. Fair use would cover taking 1 out of 1 million pixels and assembling it into a new image if a human were to perform that action.

stale2002 3y ago

> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them. In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected. The courts disagree with you though. Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the work using Photoshop. It is the computer printing out the picture using bits and bytes. That's not a human! That a computer program named photoshop! Then follow the exact line of logic from there. > characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain, We know this to be false though, because a character created by Photoshop is done on a computer though. Therefore, it is clear that yes a machine can be used in the process, unless you are going to claim that Photoshop is not protected because it is run on a computer.

LegitShady 3y ago
I used words very carefully. It depends on the level of human authorship. If you use a tool to correct some pixels thats directed by a human closely, no thats not a problem. If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship of those parts of the image. You could then go in and author changes to the work that you could further add to your copyright. But you would never change the copyright status of the stuff authored by a machine. You're using 'Photoshop' on a naive level without looking at the most important element - how much authorship is the human having. You can basically 'hand paint' a picture in photoshop, or you can use the ai tools and have almost no authorship. Photoshop is a program not a method.
- evilduck 3y ago
  You can "hand paint" in Photoshop, but you can also assemble collages composed of bits and pieces of other copyrighted works and create a result that is still copyrightable. Why is the latter currently legal in your opinion?
  - stonogo 3y ago
    If you do not license the "bits and pieces" then the courts will find you in violation of their copyrights. Pretending AI is different is bizarre out-of-touch "but I'm so special" solipsism.
    - evilduck 3y ago
      I believe you are wrong there. Transformative art requires no licensing as long as it falls under fair use. I can quote a book in my article without licensing the quote from the author. I can clip eyebrows off of copyrighted magazine portraits and assemble them into a eyebrow version of some famous art piece and never have to license a thing. I can take screenshots of copyrighted YouTube videos and assemble a "shirts of YouTubers" that I lasso tool'd and collaged together and create an entirely new copyrighted work without having to license a thing. I can take a photo of a street which contains an art gallery and copyrighted art can appear in my photo without having to license anything from the artist. Fair use would cover taking 1 out of 1 million pixels and assembling it into a new image if a human were to perform that action.