7 ms·
I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering: > As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first i
by ssalka 2y ago
I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering:
> As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all
work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. Dr.
Thaler’s copyright registration application listed the Creativity
Machine as the work’s sole author, even though the Creativity
Machine is not a human being. As a result, the Copyright
Office appropriately denied Dr. Thaler’s application.
It seems like Dr. Thaler's argument was just weak, since generative AI works often are authored in the first instance by a human being. For instance, any Midjourney or Stable Diffusion-generated image will be sourced from a prompt, which is typically written by a human. Anyone who has spent a little time trying to craft the perfect prompt knows there is a creative process therein that represents real work being done by a human. Similarly for img2img workflows, using a real photograph taken by a human. There, AI is only being used to transform a copyrightable input. Therefore such works – though certainly not all AI works – should be eligible for copyright, IMO.
- creer 2y agoThaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood. What's potentially more of a problem is the mention of artists using Midjourney and denied copyright - and very much separate cases from Thaler.
- Suppafly 2y ago>Thaler seems to go out of his way to claim no human intervention and authorship by the AI - So yeah, that's a very specific ruling that has little to do with AI as a tool. It's really more about AI personhood. This, it was a poorly concocted scheme. People do stuff like this all the time, but even when they manage to confuse one branch of the government, the rest of the government isn't suddenly obligated to go along with it.
- creer 2y agoI don't feel that it was a misguided attempt to "get copyright". Wasn't the attempt specifically to get copyright attributed to the AI (rather than to Thaler)? So it was some grand scheme about AI personhood or business plan about selling software that would own its output. Who knows. Whatever. Not relevant to copyright for AI as a tool.
- jarsin 2y agoThe copyright office has already ruled recently that prompts are not enough to gain copyright no matter how detailed or how many iterations. Furthermore, the Copyright Office stated that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control, as AI models do not consistently follow instructions in the prompts and often "fill in the gaps" left by prompts and "generate multiple different outputs"
- GrinningFool 2y agoIf I write a program to generate text of random words, that output can't be copyrighted -- but the program itself is. By the same token, the prompt is copyrighted - but not the output it generates.
- bee_rider 2y agoThe headline on Reuters seems to be more accurate (maybe it was changed after the article was posted here?). Unfortunately I can only got a glimpse of it before their overly-aggressive ad-blocker-blocker asserts itself (I’m fine with Reuters not wanting to serve me, since I block their ads, but their anti-adblocker system totally hijacks mobile safari).
- randomNumber7 2y agoYou can click on "continue without supporting us".
- bee_rider 2y agoI don’t see that option.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- __loam 2y agoDo you think ordering your burger medium rare is also human authorship?
- dlivingston 2y agoJust zooming in on txt2img, an AI generated image is: - The text prompt - The negative prompt - The model - The model seed - Any LoRAs selected What about this is copyrightable? The specific text used in the prompt? This would mean I could copyright "man holding apple". Maybe the summation of all of the above? But that would be akin to copyrighting a specific Adobe Photoshop workflow.
- Kerrick 2y agoThat sounds to me like a recipe. Recipes their interaction with copyright are well-established, legally speaking, in the United States.
- mminer237 2y agoTheir interaction being they are in no way copyrightable because they are functional, not creative expressions. That's part of why every recipe has a dramatic story, so they can have a clear copyright case if copied wholesale.
- fnordian_slip 2y agoIs that really the reason for these stories? I only know about them from memes, and looked it up when I first read about it. In my language this trend hasn't caught on yet, thankfully. I always chalked it up to cultural differences (and judged Americans a little bit for it tbh, since the idea of integrating a story into a recipe sounds rather insane).
- jjmarr 2y agoPersonally I'd like to see whether img2img works are copyrightable. My understanding is that copyright applies to the human-generated parts of an image. So e.g. In the case of a comic where the art is AI but the caption is human, the label but not the art is copyrightable. How does that apply when we transform a copyrighted image? Is the resulting work covered by the copyright of the original? If so, can I create a bad sketch drawing, transform it with img2img, and get the result as copyrighted? If not, is there a specific denoising threshold at which copyright isn't applied?
- swalsh 2y agoAnyone who has tried prompting AI to create an image should know it's not "trivial". It takes skill to get a good image, and the prompt itself is human creativity. The idea that the work produced is not from a human is insane. The model is just a tool like a camera.