4 ms·

> "Where a human inputs their own copyrightable work and that work is perceptible in the output, they will be the author of at least that portion of the output,

> "Where a human inputs their own copyrightable work and that work is perceptible in the output, they will be the author of at least that portion of the output," the guidelines said. This policy is sensible. Most AI generated works should be uncopyrightable, except where a substantial human contribution is in the output. Simply describing a picture and letting AI generate it shouldn't be enough for the same reason that dictating what you want to a painter isn't enough to earn you copyright over the resulting painting. I would be wary about integrating too much AI output into works one wants to enforce copyright over without some level of documentation. The nightmare scenario is having your copyright stripped away because of evidence one used AI extensively.

njarboe 2y ago
If the painter is doing a "work for hire" you should get the copyright.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  They can if they buy the copyright from the painter. They just can't get it from the government because they are not, in any sense, the author of the creative work.
galaxyLogic 2y ago
Right, you cannot copyright such output, is now clear(er). But what about the other direction, can distributing such AI generated content VIOLATE somebody else's copyright? If output of AI cannot be copyrighted, can it violate copyright?
NitpickLawyer 2y ago
> Simply describing a picture and letting AI generate it shouldn't be enough Interesting take, and I've heard this many times. I'm curious to explore this further and see why you think that is, and where do you draw the line? Is it the "low effort"? Is it the "automated" stuff? Is the process of setting it up, prompting it and choosing a result not enough "creative input"? If so, why? Let's take a "real world" example as analogue. Say I setup a camera on a tripod. I set it to take pictures every 1 second, and leave it there. Come back 1hr later, and go through the pictures. I select one of the sunset I like, and post it. Would I not have copyright on that picture? I wasn't there when it was taken. But I did setup the camera and selected the end result. How is that different? Taking it back to genAI, say I build/train/finetune my own model. Would it now have enough "effort" from me that I can use those generations? Is this an effort thing or is it more? Or is it just that someone else did the work? What about random "art"? As in art based on random numbers. Say I write a script in python to use random math formulas to "draw" on a canvas. I let it run for a couple of hours, come back, look at the results and select one. Do I not get copyright on the resulting "art" because it was randomly generated by a script? Does it matter if the script was written by me? Would it be different if you download my script and generate the art yourself? Would you not have copyright? I guess what I'm trying to say is "where do we draw the line?". It's not clear to me why people say "simply prompting and selecting isn't creative enough". This distinction wasn't there before. Plenty of "art" out there based on random processes + curation. Why the sudden change?

njarboe 2y ago

If the painter is doing a "work for hire" you should get the copyright.

Aloisius 2y ago
They can if they buy the copyright from the painter. They just can't get it from the government because they are not, in any sense, the author of the creative work.

galaxyLogic 2y ago

Right, you cannot copyright such output, is now clear(er). But what about the other direction, can distributing such AI generated content VIOLATE somebody else's copyright? If output of AI cannot be copyrighted, can it violate copyright?

NitpickLawyer 2y ago

> Simply describing a picture and letting AI generate it shouldn't be enough Interesting take, and I've heard this many times. I'm curious to explore this further and see why you think that is, and where do you draw the line? Is it the "low effort"? Is it the "automated" stuff? Is the process of setting it up, prompting it and choosing a result not enough "creative input"? If so, why? Let's take a "real world" example as analogue. Say I setup a camera on a tripod. I set it to take pictures every 1 second, and leave it there. Come back 1hr later, and go through the pictures. I select one of the sunset I like, and post it. Would I not have copyright on that picture? I wasn't there when it was taken. But I did setup the camera and selected the end result. How is that different? Taking it back to genAI, say I build/train/finetune my own model. Would it now have enough "effort" from me that I can use those generations? Is this an effort thing or is it more? Or is it just that someone else did the work? What about random "art"? As in art based on random numbers. Say I write a script in python to use random math formulas to "draw" on a canvas. I let it run for a couple of hours, come back, look at the results and select one. Do I not get copyright on the resulting "art" because it was randomly generated by a script? Does it matter if the script was written by me? Would it be different if you download my script and generate the art yourself? Would you not have copyright? I guess what I'm trying to say is "where do we draw the line?". It's not clear to me why people say "simply prompting and selecting isn't creative enough". This distinction wasn't there before. Plenty of "art" out there based on random processes + curation. Why the sudden change?