3 ms·
In the case mentioned above where someone just spins around in their chair and takes a random photo on their phone (which they would then own the rights to), di
by soerxpso 2y ago
In the case mentioned above where someone just spins around in their chair and takes a random photo on their phone (which they would then own the rights to), did that person really do any 'creative input'? All they did was press a button on a tool, with no further thought. That actually seems like less creative input than when I type a prompt into a tool and hit 'generate'. Why are cameras, image editors, etc, tools in a way that stable diffusion is not?
- Aloisius 2y agoIf you can show that no human creative expression was involved in composition, timing, etc, then no, it's not copyrightable. There's a very good argument for security camera footage not being copyrightable for that very reason. There just hasn't been any case law yet to test it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]