3 ms·
> it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input The test is not "input", but "authorship". If you commissioned some art
by dahfizz 3y ago
> it's a hard case to make that any AI-generated imagery lacks sufficient human input
The test is not "input", but "authorship". If you commissioned some art from an artist, you would have input on what they make but the artist would be the author and copyright holder of their work.
Its hard for me to accept that the prompter "authored" the output of an LLM. The output of the LLM was entirely generated and authored by the LLM. It did so at your command, but that doesn't count as authorship.
- rnk 3y agoArtists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. This was just a bad decision about copyright, the only reason to support this distinction is to protect art and artists.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Artists can copyright their work no matter what. If they create a computer program to scatter paint, they can copyright the output. Not if the computer program uses GenAI, at least without disclosing and disclaiming from copyright the GenAI contribution, under the current (absolutely ludicrous) Copyright Office interpretation. > If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support. It does: neither copyright law nor the copyright office defines classes of people (“artists” vs. “computer programmers”) with different effects on if they create artwork with the same type of automated tooling. The copyright office may make a spurious distinction between GenAI and other tools, but it doesn't distinction between classes of creator the way you seem to think is an issue that needs corrected.