4 ms·

>You own what you produce with it too As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible

>You own what you produce with it too As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible for copyright protection

DharmaPolice 3y ago
Surely a manual modification of the image would be a fairly easy way around this? Anyway, that may not matter - I think what people are looking for here is the absence of being sued by someone else, not the ability to sue someone else. If I generate an image to put in my companies annual report, I'm not worried about someone else copying the image somewhere else.
SamBam 3y ago
There was a widely-misunderstood lawsuit recently that lots of people interpreted this way, but it wasn't what the lawsuit concluded at all. "Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?
- objectivetruth 3y ago
  Which lawsuit are you referring to? I'm pretty sure GP is referring to the US Copyright Office guidance on copyrighting AI output in the US: https://copyright.gov/ai/ https://copyright.gov/ai/
  - SamBam 3y ago
    I was referring to the recent case against the artist Stephen Thaler, which people interpreted [1] as saying that works created by AI could not be copyrighted. This wasn't what was shown, though. Rather, the judge was ruling about a strawman argument framed by Thaler, where he explicitly stated that he was not the creator, and that he was listing the AI as an "artist for hire." I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection." The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The latter is copyrightable. "This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. " 1. e.g. https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-generated-artwork-cant-be-copyrighted-because-of-monkeys.html https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-gene...

>You own what you produce with it too As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible for copyright protection

DharmaPolice 3y ago

Surely a manual modification of the image would be a fairly easy way around this? Anyway, that may not matter - I think what people are looking for here is the absence of being sued by someone else, not the ability to sue someone else. If I generate an image to put in my companies annual report, I'm not worried about someone else copying the image somewhere else.

SamBam 3y ago

There was a widely-misunderstood lawsuit recently that lots of people interpreted this way, but it wasn't what the lawsuit concluded at all. "Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?

objectivetruth 3y ago
Which lawsuit are you referring to? I'm pretty sure GP is referring to the US Copyright Office guidance on copyrighting AI output in the US: https://copyright.gov/ai/ https://copyright.gov/ai/
- SamBam 3y ago
  I was referring to the recent case against the artist Stephen Thaler, which people interpreted [1] as saying that works created by AI could not be copyrighted. This wasn't what was shown, though. Rather, the judge was ruling about a strawman argument framed by Thaler, where he explicitly stated that he was not the creator, and that he was listing the AI as an "artist for hire." I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection." The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The latter is copyrightable. "This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. " 1. e.g. https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-generated-artwork-cant-be-copyrighted-because-of-monkeys.html https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-gene...