5 ms·

Oof, this gets into all sorts of weird legal grey areas. - All of our phones do a bunch of computational photography where AI tooling improves a photo in vario

by davely 2y ago

Oof, this gets into all sorts of weird legal grey areas. - All of our phones do a bunch of computational photography where AI tooling improves a photo in various ways. In that case, is any photo taken by a modern phone not copyrightable? - If it is copyrightable, what if someone uses an Img2Img tool or inpainting with something like Stable Diffusion (or Photoshop) in order to slightly modify an image. Is that no longer copyrightable? (FYI, my questions aren't directed at or attacking you -- just interesting hypotheticals.)

oniony 2y ago
Wouldn't they be derivative works of a copyrightable work?
Maken 2y ago
- All of our phones do a bunch of computational photography where AI tooling improves a photo in various ways. In that case, is any photo taken by a modern phone not copyrightable? On a related note, I believe it's just a question of time that in some high profile case (murder, rape, thief) direct photographic evidence of the perpetrator will have to be discarded, because it was taken with a smartphone and it's imposible to determine to which degree it was altered.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  There was a post someone made, some time ago, where they took a picture of a rabbit, with its head turned away from the photographer, so its eyes were not visible, and their iPhone painted an eye on it, because the profile was the same as if the rabbit had its head facing forward. It was in the discussion about the fake Samsung moon photos.
- eloisius 2y ago
  To some degree it wouldn’t be hard to do non-destructive editing and save the original sensor data, and embed the developed jpeg (or heif) in it. This is already normal for digital cameras when shooting RAW.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  This has sort of already happened. There was a fair bit of fuss around a very similar topic during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The prosecution were not allowed to zoom in on drone footage because the defence successfully argued that zooming in results in the creation of information through interpolation which was not there in the original recording.
therealpygon 2y ago
In short, in situation 1 there is no issue. In situation 2, if the original image can be copyrighted, AI tooling to augment the image doesn’t prevent copyright. The copyright offices guidance on the subject is a worthwhile read, since they detail out the difference between using AI as a tool to modify human authorship, vs the AI taking minimal input alone and generating a resulting image.
- thatcat 2y ago
  What if the ai augments the shutter timing because you were shaking? The ai monkey pressed the shutter so no copyright I guess? Pretty sure several apps do this on night photo mode.
  - d1sxeyes 2y ago
    Then I would assume it’d be treated as a tool in the creative process, similarly to a ruler helping you draw a straight line, but the author is still the human. But they say when you assume you make an ass out of you and me, and we all know the law is an ass, so who knows.
- nightski 2y ago
  "Minimal input" like pushing a button on a camera? Seems to me that is more minimal than some of the elaborate prompting it takes to get AI to output a desired image.
  - bmicraft 2y ago
    I guess if the prompt is complex enough to be protected then the image would be too?
    - brewtide 2y ago
      Gotta be 1,000 words.
      - 2y ago
Dylan16807 2y ago
> - If it is copyrightable, what if someone uses an Img2Img tool or inpainting with something like Stable Diffusion (or Photoshop) in order to slightly modify an image. Is that no longer copyrightable? The number 5 is not copyrightable, but if I take your short story and replace every space with the number 5 it's still subject to the original copyright.
- bredren 2y ago
  This is already essentially in iOS. In Photos edit mode, there is a Clean Up tool.
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
There's a startup doing something close to this. I can't remember the name and I'm not going to look it up, but the pitch is that you feed it a copyright stock image and it uses AI to create a usable-but-clearly-different near equivalent - a situation where absence of copyright is a feature, not a bug. Technically it's a derivative work. Practically you'd never tell, and proof of derivation is impossible. The law as it currently stands is completely unable to deal with these issues. It's not even clear what the issues are, because copyright is primarily about protecting income rights from significant original invention. The mechanical act of making a copy is somewhat incidental. When invention is mechanised (or if you want to be less charitable, replaced by algorithmic grey goo) the definition of "significant original invention" either needs to be tightened up or replaced.
SiempreViernes 2y ago
You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further discussion seems pointless because it will just collapse to a circular "digital computation is magical enough", which is your implied premise.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  By that logic, paintings aren't copyrightable either because of all the chemistry involved in drying pigment.
  - cess11 2y ago
    The limits of copyright are intrinsically arbitrary, since the right has its foundations in fantasy, i.e. supposed spiritual labour. An extension of the idea that your physical labour gives you property rights to the fruits of it, into the religious realm of the soul.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Why would anyone need to question whether photographs can be copyrighted at all? It's been settled jurisprudence for quite a long time.
- CYR1X 2y ago
  The other aspect here is you can't copyright an observable truth. For instance, sports companies tried to sue other sports companies for scraping their scores feeds but courts ruled you can't copyright the fact Patriots beat the Falcons 35-30, because that's simply what happened. There isn't any proprietary scoring keeping mechanism. Anyone who observed the game also can determine those numbers. It is an observable truth. So maybe that applies to the raw photo. You are simply capturing what happened from that POV at that moment in time. Sure if you do something with that photo, then it may become more than an observable truth.

by davely 2y ago

oniony 2y ago

Wouldn't they be derivative works of a copyrightable work?

Maken 2y ago

- All of our phones do a bunch of computational photography where AI tooling improves a photo in various ways. In that case, is any photo taken by a modern phone not copyrightable? On a related note, I believe it's just a question of time that in some high profile case (murder, rape, thief) direct photographic evidence of the perpetrator will have to be discarded, because it was taken with a smartphone and it's imposible to determine to which degree it was altered.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
There was a post someone made, some time ago, where they took a picture of a rabbit, with its head turned away from the photographer, so its eyes were not visible, and their iPhone painted an eye on it, because the profile was the same as if the rabbit had its head facing forward. It was in the discussion about the fake Samsung moon photos.
eloisius 2y ago
To some degree it wouldn’t be hard to do non-destructive editing and save the original sensor data, and embed the developed jpeg (or heif) in it. This is already normal for digital cameras when shooting RAW.
d1sxeyes 2y ago
This has sort of already happened. There was a fair bit of fuss around a very similar topic during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The prosecution were not allowed to zoom in on drone footage because the defence successfully argued that zooming in results in the creation of information through interpolation which was not there in the original recording.

therealpygon 2y ago

In short, in situation 1 there is no issue. In situation 2, if the original image can be copyrighted, AI tooling to augment the image doesn’t prevent copyright. The copyright offices guidance on the subject is a worthwhile read, since they detail out the difference between using AI as a tool to modify human authorship, vs the AI taking minimal input alone and generating a resulting image.

thatcat 2y ago
What if the ai augments the shutter timing because you were shaking? The ai monkey pressed the shutter so no copyright I guess? Pretty sure several apps do this on night photo mode.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  Then I would assume it’d be treated as a tool in the creative process, similarly to a ruler helping you draw a straight line, but the author is still the human. But they say when you assume you make an ass out of you and me, and we all know the law is an ass, so who knows.
nightski 2y ago
"Minimal input" like pushing a button on a camera? Seems to me that is more minimal than some of the elaborate prompting it takes to get AI to output a desired image.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  I guess if the prompt is complex enough to be protected then the image would be too?
  - brewtide 2y ago
    Gotta be 1,000 words.
    - 2y ago

Dylan16807 2y ago

> - If it is copyrightable, what if someone uses an Img2Img tool or inpainting with something like Stable Diffusion (or Photoshop) in order to slightly modify an image. Is that no longer copyrightable? The number 5 is not copyrightable, but if I take your short story and replace every space with the number 5 it's still subject to the original copyright.

bredren 2y ago
This is already essentially in iOS. In Photos edit mode, there is a Clean Up tool.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

There's a startup doing something close to this. I can't remember the name and I'm not going to look it up, but the pitch is that you feed it a copyright stock image and it uses AI to create a usable-but-clearly-different near equivalent - a situation where absence of copyright is a feature, not a bug. Technically it's a derivative work. Practically you'd never tell, and proof of derivation is impossible. The law as it currently stands is completely unable to deal with these issues. It's not even clear what the issues are, because copyright is primarily about protecting income rights from significant original invention. The mechanical act of making a copy is somewhat incidental. When invention is mechanised (or if you want to be less charitable, replaced by algorithmic grey goo) the definition of "significant original invention" either needs to be tightened up or replaced.

SiempreViernes 2y ago

You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further discussion seems pointless because it will just collapse to a circular "digital computation is magical enough", which is your implied premise.

nerdponx 2y ago
By that logic, paintings aren't copyrightable either because of all the chemistry involved in drying pigment.
- cess11 2y ago
  The limits of copyright are intrinsically arbitrary, since the right has its foundations in fantasy, i.e. supposed spiritual labour. An extension of the idea that your physical labour gives you property rights to the fruits of it, into the religious realm of the soul.
freejazz 2y ago
Why would anyone need to question whether photographs can be copyrighted at all? It's been settled jurisprudence for quite a long time.
CYR1X 2y ago
The other aspect here is you can't copyright an observable truth. For instance, sports companies tried to sue other sports companies for scraping their scores feeds but courts ruled you can't copyright the fact Patriots beat the Falcons 35-30, because that's simply what happened. There isn't any proprietary scoring keeping mechanism. Anyone who observed the game also can determine those numbers. It is an observable truth. So maybe that applies to the raw photo. You are simply capturing what happened from that POV at that moment in time. Sure if you do something with that photo, then it may become more than an observable truth.