3 ms·

What troubles me so much about copyright in the context of AI generated images are that we don't have any clear "Bright-Line" for what constitutes human authors

What troubles me so much about copyright in the context of AI generated images are that we don't have any clear "Bright-Line" for what constitutes human authorship. For example, let's say that I generate a bunch of images using Automatic1111 (the main Stable Diffusion webUI). This webUI has hundreds of extensions which give tons of additional functionality. If I generate an image using two controlnets, regional prompting (human deciding where particular prompt or part of prompt is applied in resulting image), and fancy prompt engineering (i.e. blending embeddings of multiple tags together, or deciding to change the prompt midway through the diffusion process), then I claim that I have put in enough human authorship that I think current courts should grant copyright in such a situation. The courts have decided that a human simply gathering a bunch of AI images into a kids book was "enough work" for the kids book to be copyrightable. If I put at least that kind of effort into making an image (i.e. by writing what is ultimately a program, see comfyUI workflows for a visual example), than I think that image should be owned by the human who wrote the program to generate it. Courts are dangerously close to deciding that any diffusion model being used as part of the images creative process would nullify the ability to copyright it.

orwin 3y ago
> The courts have decided that a human simply gathering a bunch of AI images into a kids book was "enough work" for the kids book to be copyrightable. Yes, the book is, the images aren't. > Courts are dangerously close to deciding that any diffusion model being used as part of the images creative process would nullify the ability to copyright it. I honestly think it should. Generative AI can't exist without public domain/unlicensed work. Even if your Lora is 100% copyrighted/personal work, most of the images that constitute the model are public property. Sale with any stuff written by ChatGPT, or any code by copilot. All should be open-source or public domain,at least. To me it should even be copyleft,so the book (to come back to it) should be public domain too.

orwin 3y ago

> The courts have decided that a human simply gathering a bunch of AI images into a kids book was "enough work" for the kids book to be copyrightable. Yes, the book is, the images aren't. > Courts are dangerously close to deciding that any diffusion model being used as part of the images creative process would nullify the ability to copyright it. I honestly think it should. Generative AI can't exist without public domain/unlicensed work. Even if your Lora is 100% copyrighted/personal work, most of the images that constitute the model are public property. Sale with any stuff written by ChatGPT, or any code by copilot. All should be open-source or public domain,at least. To me it should even be copyleft,so the book (to come back to it) should be public domain too.