4 ms·

IMO, the prompt is more clearly copyrightable than the output image... which is also the derived work of all the training data.

johnisgood 2y ago
I agree, but what if we account for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43345936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43345936? Mainly: > Humans derive their ideas from impressions (sensory experiences, or in terms of AI, the training model) and the ideas they form are essentially recombinations or refinements of those impressions. In this sense, human creativity can be viewed as a process of combining, transforming, and reinterpreting past experiences (impressions). We humans do it all the time, TBH. By this logic or view, nothing can be copyrighted. I don't know, it is all so shady and a grey area.
- Riverheart 2y ago
  Copyright is a human construct designed to benefit humans. It doesn’t matter if the process is the same. AI doesn’t need to put food on the table, doesn’t pay taxes, and will never die. There is no reason to treat it the same because it’s different in all other ways that matter in society.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    So can I claim copyright for AI-generated art?
    - Riverheart 2y ago
      Why should you benefit over the people doing it the traditional way? What’s your argument for the government favoring the disruption of the art economy relied on by existing taxpayers? I have no reason to support your viewpoint solely for your benefit. The space for market competition is not infinite and crowded enough as is. I made different life choices that leave me unable to create and rather than belittle the accumulated effort of those who did by feeding their work into a machine, writing a prompt and claiming the output for myself I choose to be satisfied with the fruits of my labor and place in the world. Basic golden rule stuff, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In short, my opinion is no, you shouldn’t. If you disagree that is unfortunate.

johnisgood 2y ago

I agree, but what if we account for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43345936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43345936? Mainly: > Humans derive their ideas from impressions (sensory experiences, or in terms of AI, the training model) and the ideas they form are essentially recombinations or refinements of those impressions. In this sense, human creativity can be viewed as a process of combining, transforming, and reinterpreting past experiences (impressions). We humans do it all the time, TBH. By this logic or view, nothing can be copyrighted. I don't know, it is all so shady and a grey area.

Riverheart 2y ago
Copyright is a human construct designed to benefit humans. It doesn’t matter if the process is the same. AI doesn’t need to put food on the table, doesn’t pay taxes, and will never die. There is no reason to treat it the same because it’s different in all other ways that matter in society.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  So can I claim copyright for AI-generated art?
  - Riverheart 2y ago
    Why should you benefit over the people doing it the traditional way? What’s your argument for the government favoring the disruption of the art economy relied on by existing taxpayers? I have no reason to support your viewpoint solely for your benefit. The space for market competition is not infinite and crowded enough as is. I made different life choices that leave me unable to create and rather than belittle the accumulated effort of those who did by feeding their work into a machine, writing a prompt and claiming the output for myself I choose to be satisfied with the fruits of my labor and place in the world. Basic golden rule stuff, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In short, my opinion is no, you shouldn’t. If you disagree that is unfortunate.