2 ms·
It's not "anti-AI" to acknowledge the fact that when your job is to create work for hire in order to build up your employer's IP portfolio, being paid to use AI
by heavyset_go 10mo ago
It's not "anti-AI" to acknowledge the fact that when your job is to create work for hire in order to build up your employer's IP portfolio, being paid to use AI to create work that isn't IP isn't doing your job.
Your job is to create IP. As per the US Copyright Office, AI output cannot be copyrighted, so it is not anyone's IP, not yours, not your employer's.
That's not "anti-AI", that's AI and copyright reality. Game Workshop runs their business on IP, suddenly creating work that anyone can copy, sell or reproduce because it isn't anyone's IP is antithetical to the purpose of a for-profit company.
- rpdillon 10mo ago> As per the US Copyright Office, AI output cannot be copyrighted I'm glad you mentioned this. It's true. But AI output as part of a larger pipeline of work to generate something is copyrightable. So I'm not sure how this is going to play out in a practical sense. I don't think we've tested this legally yet.
- pkaye 10mo agoIf a person holds a camera and clicks a button, the output can be copyrighted. But if I write a few pages worth of prompts and click enter, it cannot be copyrighted?
- heavyset_go 10mo agoCopyright protects human creations. It's no different than spending years training a chimp to paint like Van Gogh, its output are not human creations and thus cannot be copyrighted, no matter how much effort you put into training that chimp.