4 ms·
The human using photoshop is providing the creativity, and thus the human using photoshop owns the copyright, if they do sufficiently creative work (like actual
by TheDong 3y ago
The human using photoshop is providing the creativity, and thus the human using photoshop owns the copyright, if they do sufficiently creative work (like actually drawing).
However, when using the current image gen AIs, the input you provide is a sentence of text and a couple parameters, a minimal amount of creativity.
This would be akin to opening photoshop and doing minimal work, such as choosing "resize image, apply blur filter".
If you open photoshop and do a few rote transformations, you indeed have not imbued enough creativity to create a new copyrighted work, the work retains its original copyright if you just open it in photoshop and resize it.
- PeterStuer 3y ago'the input you provide is a sentence of text and a couple parameters, a minimal amount of creativity" Have you tried creating art with AI? Usually it takes hundreds of iterations of text-to-image, image-to-image, inpainting, outpainting using dozens of different models. "A sentence is all it takes" is like saying all it takes to make a million is crossing some numbers on a grid.
- pyuser583 3y agoIs creativity a legal concept?
- hnfong 3y agoYes. But the bar for creativity is very low for a work to be considered copyrightable. See eg https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... 308.2 Creativity A work of authorship must possess “some minimal degree of creativity” to sustain a copyright claim. Feist, 499 U.S. at 358, 362 (citation omitted). “[T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low.” Even a “slight amount” of creative expression will suffice. “The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.’” Id. at 346 (citation omitted).