5 ms·

If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?

by bagels 2y ago

autoexec 2y ago
> If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? that depends on the terms of the deal. Some artists want to keep the copyright but will sell the work, while others are happy to sign their rights away for money. > If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications? Copyrights are for humans, so if you pay an AI, because the AI isn't a human, it never had a copyright to sell you. You paid for an image without a copyright.
- fnikacevic 2y ago
  Copyrights are owned by businesses all the time.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    We pretend businesses are people all the time.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      Corporations are legal persons, that's the entire point of the form.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    Copyrights are owned by corporations as a result of either: (1) actual human authorship and original ownership, sold to a corporation, or (2) actual human authorship as a work for hire on behalf of the corporation, which is a special case specifically laid out in copyright law which allows someone other than the person performing the actual act of authorship to be the original copyright owner.
aenvoker 2y ago
> If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? Initially, the someone owns the copyright. Then they agree to give it to you. > If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications? No one. It's public domain. As if it was painted by the wind.
JamesLeonis 2y ago
The artist still owns the copyright. Payment by itself does not transfer copyright. To do that the artist needs to explicitly sign away those rights. This happens in employment all the time. Part of the paperwork you sign is about transferring over the copyrights from yourself to the company. I highly recommend you check your own paperwork to see exactly how much this covers, since some states allow contracts that cover everything you make at any time. California has a specific law that limits these contracts to only works done on company equipment and on company time. Your state might be different.
- pas 2y ago
  doesn't need to explicitly, it's enough to have the understanding that it's a "work for hire" situation (at least in the US) of course just giving someone money is not sufficient to establish this, but telling someone that "I want to hire you to make a photo for me (of me)" and they acknowledge, then that is probably enough.
  - JamesLeonis 2y ago
    This is not correct. The copyright office itself doesn't recognize any transfer of works-for-hire [0] unless there's (#3) a written document of the transfer, (#4) signed by the recipient, (#5) signed by the copyright holder, and finally (#6) the work was made expressly as work-for-hire. Every employment, contractor, and freelancer contract is written with all of these questions accounted for. Even wedding photographers keep the copyright of the photos they take of your wedding too for this very reason, unless explicitly contracted to transfer those rights. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf, page 5
  - anon743448 2y ago
    As sibling comment said, this is not correct. In wedding and portrait photography, many clients think that they own copyrights to the photos but they don’t and sometimes get in trouble for violating photographers’ copyrights.
  - Karliss 2y ago
smallnix 2y ago
You don't. You don't pay an AI. You pay a company owned by humans that offer an AI service.
dylan604 2y ago
It can never be the AI. The AI is NOT a person. Why are we belaboring this?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Many vested interests really want to be artists without putting in the work into the craft required to be one. Of course, other interests simply want to cut out artists entirely while claiming their creations totally aren't a result of stealing Petabytes of existing artistity.
- naasking 2y ago
  AI agents will exist some day, and almost certainly some will be granted personhood status.
  - Timwi 2y ago
    “Some day”, sure, but as we know the granting of personhood status doesn't formally happen until 2365, when Phillipa Louvois rules in the Brian Maddox case. And despite the success of that ruling, it still doesn't fully apply to all AI agents (e.g. the EMH Mk 1).
Lerc 2y ago
>If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?

by bagels 2y ago

If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications?

autoexec 2y ago

> If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? that depends on the terms of the deal. Some artists want to keep the copyright but will sell the work, while others are happy to sign their rights away for money. > If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications? Copyrights are for humans, so if you pay an AI, because the AI isn't a human, it never had a copyright to sell you. You paid for an image without a copyright.

fnikacevic 2y ago
Copyrights are owned by businesses all the time.
- autoexec 2y ago
  We pretend businesses are people all the time.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    Corporations are legal persons, that's the entire point of the form.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Copyrights are owned by corporations as a result of either: (1) actual human authorship and original ownership, sold to a corporation, or (2) actual human authorship as a work for hire on behalf of the corporation, which is a special case specifically laid out in copyright law which allows someone other than the person performing the actual act of authorship to be the original copyright owner.

aenvoker 2y ago

> If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? Initially, the someone owns the copyright. Then they agree to give it to you. > If you pay for an AI to paint a picture according to your specifications? No one. It's public domain. As if it was painted by the wind.

JamesLeonis 2y ago

The artist still owns the copyright. Payment by itself does not transfer copyright. To do that the artist needs to explicitly sign away those rights. This happens in employment all the time. Part of the paperwork you sign is about transferring over the copyrights from yourself to the company. I highly recommend you check your own paperwork to see exactly how much this covers, since some states allow contracts that cover everything you make at any time. California has a specific law that limits these contracts to only works done on company equipment and on company time. Your state might be different.

pas 2y ago
doesn't need to explicitly, it's enough to have the understanding that it's a "work for hire" situation (at least in the US) of course just giving someone money is not sufficient to establish this, but telling someone that "I want to hire you to make a photo for me (of me)" and they acknowledge, then that is probably enough.
- JamesLeonis 2y ago
  This is not correct. The copyright office itself doesn't recognize any transfer of works-for-hire [0] unless there's (#3) a written document of the transfer, (#4) signed by the recipient, (#5) signed by the copyright holder, and finally (#6) the work was made expressly as work-for-hire. Every employment, contractor, and freelancer contract is written with all of these questions accounted for. Even wedding photographers keep the copyright of the photos they take of your wedding too for this very reason, unless explicitly contracted to transfer those rights. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf, page 5
- anon743448 2y ago
  As sibling comment said, this is not correct. In wedding and portrait photography, many clients think that they own copyrights to the photos but they don’t and sometimes get in trouble for violating photographers’ copyrights.
- Karliss 2y ago

smallnix 2y ago

You don't. You don't pay an AI. You pay a company owned by humans that offer an AI service.

dylan604 2y ago

It can never be the AI. The AI is NOT a person. Why are we belaboring this?

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Many vested interests really want to be artists without putting in the work into the craft required to be one. Of course, other interests simply want to cut out artists entirely while claiming their creations totally aren't a result of stealing Petabytes of existing artistity.
naasking 2y ago
AI agents will exist some day, and almost certainly some will be granted personhood status.
- Timwi 2y ago
  “Some day”, sure, but as we know the granting of personhood status doesn't formally happen until 2365, when Phillipa Louvois rules in the Brian Maddox case. And despite the success of that ruling, it still doesn't fully apply to all AI agents (e.g. the EMH Mk 1).

Lerc 2y ago

>If you pay someone to paint a picture, who owns the copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire