4 ms·

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

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.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  if the things you're collaging can't be copyrighted because they lack human authorship, you can only copyright the arrangement, not the things you're arranging. If they have human authorship, its the original human artist's work you're collaging and now you're creating an unauthorized derivative work violating many copyrights.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Fortunately AI art can have human authorship if it is closely directed by a human. > not the things you're arranging You can if those things are closely directed by a human, using AI as a tool like photoshop is a tool.
stale2002 3y ago
> I used words very carefully. Then I am happy to use your word if that clarifies things. Just replace everything that I said about "human input" with "human authorship". And my point is that there are many things that a human can do using AI art that have large amounts of "human authorship" beyond just the boring case of prompting midjourney with a dumb prompt. > It depends on the level of human authorship. Oh hey! Yes that is exactly my point. That point being that just like Photoshop images are copyrightable, because there is human authorship, so can AI art, if there is human authorship. Glad you agree. > thats directed by a human closely Ok! You agree with me then! That's my point! My point is that AI art can be directed by a human closely and that there is so much more than can be done than a simple prompt into mid journey. You agree with my central point. > If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship Not if you "direct it closely"! Then it's protected. > how much authorship is the human having That's is exactly what I am talking about though, that I have said multiple times. That there are lots of things that a human can do, related to AI art that are directed closely, and that these things are authorship. But I am glad that you agree with me that if it is directed closely then it is protected, which was my point and that you can do this with AI.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  Its clear from this post that you aren't at all here in good faith, just to be glib and purposely misconstrue other people's words. good luck with life.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

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.
LegitShady 3y ago
if the things you're collaging can't be copyrighted because they lack human authorship, you can only copyright the arrangement, not the things you're arranging. If they have human authorship, its the original human artist's work you're collaging and now you're creating an unauthorized derivative work violating many copyrights.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Fortunately AI art can have human authorship if it is closely directed by a human. > not the things you're arranging You can if those things are closely directed by a human, using AI as a tool like photoshop is a tool.

stale2002 3y ago

> I used words very carefully. Then I am happy to use your word if that clarifies things. Just replace everything that I said about "human input" with "human authorship". And my point is that there are many things that a human can do using AI art that have large amounts of "human authorship" beyond just the boring case of prompting midjourney with a dumb prompt. > It depends on the level of human authorship. Oh hey! Yes that is exactly my point. That point being that just like Photoshop images are copyrightable, because there is human authorship, so can AI art, if there is human authorship. Glad you agree. > thats directed by a human closely Ok! You agree with me then! That's my point! My point is that AI art can be directed by a human closely and that there is so much more than can be done than a simple prompt into mid journey. You agree with my central point. > If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship Not if you "direct it closely"! Then it's protected. > how much authorship is the human having That's is exactly what I am talking about though, that I have said multiple times. That there are lots of things that a human can do, related to AI art that are directed closely, and that these things are authorship. But I am glad that you agree with me that if it is directed closely then it is protected, which was my point and that you can do this with AI.

LegitShady 3y ago
Its clear from this post that you aren't at all here in good faith, just to be glib and purposely misconstrue other people's words. good luck with life.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]