3 ms·

That's not right, no one owns the copyright on AI-generated images. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-wh

by sp332 3y ago

That's not right, no one owns the copyright on AI-generated images. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-what-do-about-it-2023-12-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-crea... That means the poster is wrong too, because without copyright, anyone is legally allowed to upload the images to the marketplace.

rynn 3y ago
Current guidance is that AI-generated works are not copyrightable: 'If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.' https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There is some nuance to the document, but prompt-only works seem pretty clear.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rynn 3y ago
  @sp332, yes, sorry. I meant to reply to the top level comment.
GaggiX 3y ago
If AI images have no copyright then you can train a model only on AI generated images and you can claim that the model was not trained on any copyrighted material, easy exploit.
- drpossum 3y ago
  This is the same logic children have of "if I have someone steal something and then give it to me I'm fine". I have the feeling that isn't "one weird trick legal systems hate"
  - GaggiX 3y ago
    >if I have someone steal something A person still owns that "something", that's the big difference, the legal system is claiming that no one owns AI generated images, that's the whole point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by sp332 3y ago

rynn 3y ago

Current guidance is that AI-generated works are not copyrightable: 'If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.' https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There is some nuance to the document, but prompt-only works seem pretty clear.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rynn 3y ago
@sp332, yes, sorry. I meant to reply to the top level comment.

GaggiX 3y ago

If AI images have no copyright then you can train a model only on AI generated images and you can claim that the model was not trained on any copyrighted material, easy exploit.

drpossum 3y ago
This is the same logic children have of "if I have someone steal something and then give it to me I'm fine". I have the feeling that isn't "one weird trick legal systems hate"
- GaggiX 3y ago
  >if I have someone steal something A person still owns that "something", that's the big difference, the legal system is claiming that no one owns AI generated images, that's the whole point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]