An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright.
In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.
Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”
You have to be the creator of the work in order to copyright it. He didn’t create the work. If the wind organized the leaves into a beautiful pattern, he couldn’t copyright the leaves either.
Weirdly enough the monkey selfie probably establishes some precedence here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Problem is the AI isn’t a monkey with a camera, it is an algorothm licensed from a company. The guy basically outsourced the work and tried to copyright the finished product which might be fine depending on the legal agreements and if the AI Company has the rights to it.
You could copyright a photograph of that leaf pattern though, couldn’t you?
but its just a photocopy of the leaves, not the actual leaves. And to photograph something, you capture it according to your will. What will be the light situation, from which angle, at what focal length,… so many options.
This is getting weird.
If I would generate an image with an AI and then take a photo of it, I could copyright the photo, even if the underlying art is not copyrightable, just like the leaves?
So, in an hypothetical way, I could hold a copyright on the photo of the image, but not on the image itself.
So if someone would find the model, seed, inference engine and prompt they could theoretically redo the image and use it, but until then they would be unable to use my photo for it?
So I would have a copyright to it through obscurity, trying to make it unfeasible to replicate?
This does sound bananas, which - to be fair - is pretty in line with my general impression of copyright laws.
Copyright covers your creative expression.
For example, you draw a superhero named “LemmyMan” and post it online. All of your creative choices are protected. If someone made another LemmyMan with a different caption, they would be violating your copyright because you created everything about LemmyMan, not just the caption in your drawing.
Now suppose you take a photo of Mount Everest. Mount Everest is not your creation, but the choices of lighting, foreground, and perspective are. Someone could not copy your exact photo, but they could take a different photo of Mount Everest making different creative choices.
The same is true of taking a photo of work in the public domain, like the Mona Lisa. If you make no creative addition to the Mona Lisa in your photo, then you have no copyright at all. If you put some creativity into your photo, like some interesting lighting, then those creative elements are protected. But anyone else could still take a photo of the Mona Lisa with different lighting, the subject itself is not under copyright.
Now suppose you tell an AI, “Draw me a superhero”, and it outputs ChatMan. If you make no further creative additions, then you have no copyright at all. But suppose you add a caption to it. Then the caption is your creative expression, so that is protected. But the rest of ChatMan is not, it’s in the public domain just like the Mona Lisa. Anyone else can make their own version of ChatMan that’s exactly the same minus your caption, because the underlying subject is not protected.
You just inadvertently explained why copyright doesn’t cover training. Thanks.
Copyright doesn’t cover the output of training. But AI companies are being sued over training input.
If you want to download a bunch of images from the Getty catalog, you need permission from Getty. If you don’t have their permission and download them anyway, you can be sued. It doesn’t even matter whether those images are used for training or some other commercial purpose unrelated to AI.
Depends on the training and the output.
Just like if you photographed the Mona Lisa in such a way as it recreated the piece as if it wasn’t a photograph, a model sufficiently trained that can reproduce the original training data, you have copyright issues.
Problem is that many models can do this, but it’s a mathematically improbable occurrence.
If I make a stamp that’s made of 1 billion exact copies of different copyrighted photos and cut it infinitesimally small, and mixed it up, the problem that it can produce the original work that it was made from still becomes a copyright issue.
You’d have to prove the opposite, in fact. That it’s mathematically impossible for your model to reproduce the copyrighted content for it not to be an issue
It’s human expression that is protected by copyright. Creative height is the bar.
If you’ve done nothing but press a button there’s often no copyright. Photography involves things like selection of motive, framing, etc. If you just photograph a motive which itself doesn’t have copyright, then what you added through your choices is what you may have copyright of. Using another’s scan of a public domain book might be considered fair use, for example (not much extra expression added by just scanning)
Independent creation is indeed a thing in copyright law. Multiple people photographing the same sunset won’t infringe each other’s copyright, at least not if you don’t intentionally try to copy another’s expression, like actively replicating their framing and edits and more.
Doesn’t modern art include works that are simply paint streaks left on canvas from someone quickly swinging a brush with paint on it at a distance?
Why is the phrase used by an AI prompt not considered more effort than that? The former requires no thought, only movement. The latter requires an understanding of language, critical thinking and the ability to envision an end result that isn’t just a paint splatter.
Because in a Jackson Pollock painting, the artist was in complete control of his paintbrush as it swung through the air. Not to mention the choice of brush, the amount of paint, the color, etc. If there is a blue streak in the upper left, it’s because Pollock wanted a blue streak in the upper left.
An AI prompt is more like handing your camera to a passerby in Paris and saying, “Please take a photo of me with the Eiffel Tower in the background”. If your belt is visible in the photo, it’s because the passerby wanted it there. That’s why the passerby, not you, has a copyright over the result.
Your first paragraph is just nonsense. Please go try to swing a paintbrush and get every drop exactly where you want. It’s not possible. It’s literally why pollock painted that way.
Hmm… what about pendulum painting? Where you put paint in a bucket, put a hole in it, and let it swing back and forth over the canvas?
On one side he chooses paint and size of hole and initial path and so on, but on the other hand he let nature and physics do the actual painting for him.
No they weren’t. Their brush was being influenced by every piece they had seen before. None of those arguments are any different than the resin was in control of the prompt when they requested the image. This is nothing more than human/biological exceptionalism.
Indeed. ‘Fountain’ is widely recognised as a major landmark and it’s just a urinal in a museum.
The painting “This is not a pipe” sort of touches on this very topic. A picture is not the thing pictured much like a photo of an AI image is not that image.
Fun mind teasers!
You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art. The artist doesn’t copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting. If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.
It has to be fixed in a tangible medium.
In this case they’re not “fixing” their words and the final art is the created expression. Yet in this case their created expression wasn’t created by them but the program.
In this case their combination is the palette and paint but the program “interpreted” and so fixed it.
For example you can’t copyright a simple and common saying. Nor something factual like a phone book. Likewise you can’t copyright recipes. There has to be a “creative” component by a human. And courts have ruled that AI generated content doesn’t meet that threshold.
That’s not to say that creating the right prompt isn’t an “art” (as in skill and technique) and there is a lot of work in getting them to work right. Likewise there’s a lot of work in compiling recipes, organizing them, etc. but even then only the “design” part of the arrangement of the facts, and excluding the factual content, can be copyrighted.
Using stuff like controlnet to manually influence how images are shaped by the ML engine might count, there’s some great examples here (involving custom Qr codes)
In general these art pieces are not created simply with words. Users control the output using ControlNet which allows drawing on the image to force regeneration only to specific areas. It seems that if your only logic around it being non-copyrightable is due to them using words and that the program “does it all”, but that’s just not how it works.
I’m not in favor of copyrights for stuff like this, but you have a terrible misunderstanding of how these art pieces are created and it’s affecting your argument negatively.
You cannot copyright a recipe, but you can copyright the product it produces, as evidenced by the wealth of food and drinks that are protected by law from being copied.
Can a person who works with wood and creates something unique from the wood then copyright their design crafted from the wood? What makes it art and not just glue, iron nails, and dead trees? This is what needs to be defined with AI. Right now everyone is so happy to jump on the anti-AI bandwagon that they blind themselves to issues regarding the law by claiming the art is lawless at best and stolen at worst, when in fact it is simply a new tool and a new medium.
Did authors who used typewriters rail against the new word processor? What about the editor that checked for grammar and spelling? Did they try to burn down spell and grammar checks in microsoft word? Is the art any less art if it has been created with a tool that allows for more ease than has been available in the past? Should we boycott the bakers that do not mill their own wheat? Or does the sourdough bread belong to the wild yeast cultures, and so owed recompense for all we have taken from it?
The argument can be made until the universe burns out, or we can accept that art is made by sentient life, and any tool used in the production of it cannot be considered an owner of that art, and if the only sentient lifeform involved in the creation of that art wishes to claim it as their own, then they should have the right to protections for their work.
you can copyright the product it produces, as evidenced by the wealth of food and drinks that are protected by law from being copied.
No, you can neither copyright a recipe nor the food or drink it produces.
Food and drink is only protected by trademark law. You are free to make a burger that tastes exactly like a Big Mac, you simply can’t call it a Big Mac.
And you can take a photo of some natural rock formations on black and white film stock, but you can’t take Ansel Adam’s photo of natural rock formations on black and white film stock. This is what the artist is suing for. He wants to claim ownership of his work, which I believe falls under copyright law, just like Ansel Adam’s photos.
Ansel Adams has a copyright because of the creative control he had over his photos, such as in lighting, perspective and framing.
Artists generally cannot copyright AI output because they do not have a comparable degree of creative control. Giving prompts to an AI is not sufficient.
Ok, I controlled the lighting, perspective and framing. Can I copyright now?
I’m not Anti AI. I have fun making stuff with it.
But the copyright laws as they are don’t apply. And if they did it would open a can of worms legally.
The recipe can’t be copyrighted. The cake produced can’t be copyrighted. But the packaging or style of a cake with your brand could be trademarked which is a different legal ball of wax entirely
What is the limit to the number of words that can be copyrighted?
For sale,
baby shoes,
never worn.
Can I claim that as my own? Is six words the lowest? Four? Where is the line? What makes it art vs. instruction? If Hemmingway had said those words to his publicist and asked that they be published instead of writing them himself, would he still own them?
And therein lies the rub. When it comes to copyright every infringement case has to be adjudicated by a judge (assuming they have filed a copyright)
I can definitely recommend Leonard French’s (a copyright lawyer) channel Lawful Masses on YouTube and Twitch for a more in-depth breakdown of copyright cases. How it works, the rights that copyright holders have, etc.
It has to be fixed in a tangible medium.
Hard disks are pretty tangible.
But if they are not as you suggest, does this mean all digital photography is not copyright able?
So many arguments as to why this shouldn’t be subject to copyright seem to fail simple questions of logic.
If the output of ML isn’t copyright able, then the inputs should not be subject to copyright either. The whole system is broken and only serves to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It doesn’t protect the small time artists, only the exceptionally wealthy ones who earn more than the typical worker will make in many lifetimes.
Here’s more if you’d like to read about it.
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/
I remember when the DMCA was introduced and all the various issues arising from what and isn’t copyrightable when it comes to digital vs physical copies, etc.
Again I’d like to recommend Leonard French (Lawful Masse) on YouTube and Twitch for a copyright lawyers breakdown of these kinds of issues.
If I use a combination of words to commission an artist to paint a picture, I don’t own the copyright on that picture.
If it’s a commission, you might. Depends on the how the contract is worded.
Okay, let’s see the contract in this AI case that grants this man the copyright.
The contract is set by the company, let’s say Midjourney, which passes ownership to the person who generate the “art.” What needs to be defined is if ai generated art is art? So far, no one seems to have a definite answer. I come down on the side of yes, but there are a lot of others that say no.
Which company passes the ownership to the person in its contract? Midjourney does not, I just looked:
By using the Services, You grant to Midjourney, its affiliates, successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Content You input into the Services, as well as any Assets produced by You through the Service. This license survives termination of this Agreement by any party, for any reason.
https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/terms-of-service
They make it clear that you do not own the copyright on the images you create. Did the artist suing the copyright office use this company?
irrevocable copyright license
A licence isn’t a copyright, though?
https://help.midjourney.com/en/articles/8150363-can-i-use-my-images-commercially
reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Content You input into the Services, as well as any Assets produced by You through the Service.
In no way does Midjourney own the image, they only have the ability to “reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute”.
The article makes that perfectly clear.
You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art
so its literature, then?
The artist doesn’t copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting.
Sure, the artist doesn’t copyright a palette, or the shop does not hold ownership of pigments. But Companies do patent pigments.
If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.
If you commission an Art piece, with a detailed description of what it should display. The artist comes back to you with a draft, you tell them to adjust here and there, and you finally after several rounds of drafting got the commissioned art piece. Did you draw it?
Thats what LLMs do and nothing else.
Is the diction of the buyer to the artist in the final paragraph of your argument make the painting a novel? You have you answer.
Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments, but that doesn’t give them ownership over the paintings created by them, only protect for their own IP vis-à-vis the pigments. In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work but hold no ownership on the art it produces.
Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn’t a sentient lifeform. By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.
Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments
No, you cannot copyright a pigment. Companies can use colors as trademarks, but that just means that competitors can’t use the color in a way that would confuse customers. For example, you can’t start a courier service with vans that are the same color as UPS vans, because that might confuse customers.
You are still free to use that color in ways that are unrelated to UPS, for instance as an eye shadow.
Patents are another matter entirely. You don’t patent the color, but you might be able to patent the media (e.g. a new formula for quick drying paint).
In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work
What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?
Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn’t a sentient lifeform
It was an allegory. The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist. And since you can’t copyright something you didn’t made, well tough luck getting copyright on AI slop.
By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.
No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.
If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.
It’s a good analogy but one thing to consider is that the artist is the copyright holder.
The company that directed it only has the copyright either by explicit contract transferring rights or because it’s a work for hire where the employee’s copyright work is “automatically” transferred to their employer.
Some interesting case law on that from Disney artists, comic book authors, etc
What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?
That depends on what is proprietary to the company. If they have created the system and the model, then both.
The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist.
That is a highly subjective point of view. Let’s look at music. If a musician loses their arms and can no longer play an instrument, but instead dictates the chords to someone else to play, who is the artist? Who can claim ownership of the piece?
No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.
Spoken like someone who has never used an LLM before and thinks it magically produces exactly what you want on the first time, every time.
If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.
No, that’s everyone else’s argument. Mine is that the tool is the LLM, and that when art is created with it, it should be open to copyright.
Let’s look at music. If a musician loses their arms and can no longer play an instrument, but instead dictates the chords to someone else to play, who is the artist? Who can claim ownership of the piece?
Then that musician becomes the composer who can copyright the sheet music. The one who plays the chords becomes the performing artist and can copyright the performance.
Spoken like someone who has never used an LLM before and thinks it magically produces exactly what you want on the first time, every time.
I have used LLMs extensively, several versions and types. I know how that shit works. And no I do not think that its results are deterministic and accurate.
Mine is that the tool is the LLM, and that when art is created with it, it should be open to copyright.
The LLM is the “artist” as it produces the image. And you can’t claim copyright for someone else.
Then that musician becomes the composer who can copyright the sheet music. The one who plays the chords becomes the performing artist and can copyright the performance.
That is if they actually composed the music. In the case of someone saying I want a song that is ABAG, and they ask that it be written down because they cannot write it down themselves, the person who writes down ABAG isn’t the composer, they are an extension of the pen that writes the note–they have become a tool.
The LLM is the “artist” as it produces the image. And you can’t claim copyright for someone else.
The LLM gives you what you ask for based on a random seed and keywords in your prompt. It has no will of it’s own. It cannot exert its will over the image. It simply outputs. As I’ve said in another part of this thread, if I tie a bucket of paint with hole to a rope and sling the bucket of paint over a canvas, does the bucket of paint get credit for being the artist? Does the rope? No. They had no will. Even though my input was minimal, and the results most assuredly random, I am still the artist by all accounts, and as such may copyright my random sprays of paint should I deem them worthy. My intent has created the art–my desire. The machine cannot create because it cannot exert its will. It simply does what it is asked and outputs.
the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.
Then the real artist, the AI, should request the copyright. And sue the charlatan that tried to take its work and claim all credit.
And the camera owns the photograph, and Photoshop owns the digital image, and Final Cut Pro owns the film? The tool owns nothing. The tool is incapable of ownership
Thus the value of the art is reduced to an idea and the human labor invested. The labor is practically zero and an idea is worth nothing. That means there is nothing worthwhile to copyright
Wow.
And how do you define a tool?
Couldn’t you take a picture of the leaves and copyright that?
Yes, you could. BTW I just took a screenshot of your comment so it’s mine to copyright.
I mean, literally yes, though?
Like, it’s not meaningful at all, but yes, it’s copyrightable.
Exactly my point, copyright law is ridiculous.
If I made an image in photoshop, the computer made it, I just directed it.
How is AI different?
And that’s why I make art completely without instruction or man made tools. I actually independently developed cellphones and English purely to dunk on people on the internet.
Funny but that is kind of my point, where is the line and why?
What are you talking about? The computer didn’t make it. That’s like saying a paintbrush made a painting.
That is not even close to AI image generation.
We could explain it to you, but you’re not interested in understanding.
I’m being honest, I get that they are not the same, I just don’t understand why the line is drawn with AI, Why wasn’t it drawn with photoshop?
They tried to draw the lines with Photoshop, and with cameras, and with pre-mixed pigments, and probably more.
It’s been used many times before, but I like the analogy of ordering food. If I go to a restaurant and order risotto, I haven’t made the dish, I’ve only consumed it. I want you to focus on that word “consume”, it’s important here.
Another idea I’ve seen recently that I like was a summed post something like this:
- People use AI to write a 4,000 word article from a 15 word idea (introduction of noise)
- Others then use AI to summarize the 4,000 word article into a 15 word blurb (introduction of more noise)
I know I’m using a lot of analogies here; from food to writing and now the visual medium - but stick with me. Completely sidestepping any lofty notions of soul or humanity, let’s look strictly at what’s being communicated in a visual piece of art generated by AI. It’s an idea, one containing neither your specific style (the creative process) or vision (the final product), though you may feel you get a close approximation after several iterations and a detailed/complex enough prompt. If you wanted to convey the idea of “eagle perched in a tree”, you’ve already done so with that phrase (or prompt in this respect). By providing an AI-generated image, you’ve narrowed my own ability to interpret down into the AI-generated noise now taking up space between us.
The reason you’d use AI-generated art is because you need to fill space, like the thumbnail to go with an article. An empty space to dump things into. While I can’t ever claim enough authority to define what exactly art is and is not (nobody can), I can say with absolute certainty that no matter how far the tech evolves, to me PERSONALLY, AI will only ever generate content, not art. There is already more art in the world than I could possibly consume in a hundred lifetimes, I neither want nor need this garbage.
I understand your point, but I disagree.
As someone who has a very vivid imagination and absolutely no artistic skills, and who doesn’t enjoy drawing, i find that being able to produce my ideas through words is amazing.
For me, AI art is a tool that enables me to express ideas that would otherwise never be expressed.
I don’t consider a few lines of prompt of the top of your head art, but if someone sat down, revised, tweaked and put effort and imagination into it, isn’t that art? Would it be more of an art piece if they just published the text instead of the generated image?
If I go to a restaurant and order risotto, I haven’t made the dish, I’ve only consumed it. I want you to focus on that word “consume”, it’s important here.
If I buy a bread at the bakery, ham and cheese in the grocery store, and make me a sandwich, who’s the creator?
AI Prompt User is complaining people stealing their artwork? Well that’s new.
If you didn’t make it, how the fuck can it be stolen from you?
Machine output cannot be copyrighted. Whether prompt tweaking and the other stuff involved in making AI art is enough for something to not be considered machine output is still to be decided by the courts.
How much of it does he have to make in order for it to ‘count’ in your mind?
He spent weeks on fine tuning tbf
It’s like photography: Photographers often spend weeks trying to get the perfect shot, should they be allowed to copyright it?
deleted by creator
Yes, photographers, who held their camera, who spent years honing their craft, learning the ins and out of the art of photography, who put their bodies in the field to capture real life, yes, they should be able to copyright their work.
Pull out your phone. Open the camera app. Click the button. You just did an art.
Pull out a pen. Scribble your stick men. You just did the last supper.
I didn’t say a good art. But a work sufficiently creative as to be covered by copyright at the least.
It absolutely takes training to familiarize yourself with the model and get the results you want.
Copyright or not doesnt change time and effort that can be spent on prompting. Theres no reason to have an objective stance against people that want to explore it.
No, it doesn’t.
Rejection of reality? Because you dont like ai?
So you could create a targeted result with prompts/iterations as well as someone who has practiced with midjourney since it came out?
If I order an art piece by someone, and reject thousands of finished pieces for it to not meet my standards, will i become an artist?
According to anyone in the Stable Diffusion communities, yes. And as a matter of fact, because I responded to you, I am now a novelist.
If I take lots of photos, print out and frame one of them but delete the others, will I become an artist?
you see here the thing is “I Take” you did the thing,
What about “I Generate”?
your not doing the work, you are telling the computer to do the work based on words you typed in, at best you could argue you own the copyright to the prompt you typed in, but not to what the computer generated. You did not generate, the computer generated
How is that meaningfully different from “the camera generated”? Both result in a full image from a single input.
“you’re not doing the work, you are telling the camera to do the work based on a setting you found / created, at best you could argue you own the copyright to the setting, but not to what the camera captured. You did not take a photo, the camera took it”
If I order an photograph by someone, and reject thousands of finished pieces for it to not meet my standards, will i become a cameraman?
Another thought experiment: If I hire an artist and tell them exactly what they should draw, which style they should use, which colours they should use etc does 100% of the credit go to the artist or am I also partly responsible?
According to these people, YOU become the artist, AND the AI is the artist.
Normally, if you’re commissioning a piece of art for commercial purposes, you would have some sort of contract with the artist that gives you the copyrights. Otherwise, the copyright belongs to the artist that produced the work, even if you buy the product.
Then there needs to be a copyright ownership agreement between the artist in the article and the artists’ whose work was used to train the AI…
But does the artist get 100% of the credit? Ignoring copyright for now, this is just a thought experiment, who’s getting how much credit?
There is no legally defined basis for “who gets credit.” An artist is not a tool that you used to produce art. The artist produced the artwork. They own the artwork and copyrights (that is, the right to make and distribute copies) unless there is some legal arrangement that says otherwise. The fact that you paid them and told them what to do, by itself, means nothing in a legal context. That’s why, if you’re paying an artist to do creative work, or if you’re an artist being paid to do creative work, you should always have a contract that defines, among other things, what everyone’s rights are with regard to the final product.
Weeks? That shit can be done in mere minutes.
“I have been exploring a special prompt that I will be publishing at a later date, I have created hundreds of images using it, and after many weeks of fine-tuning and curating my generations, I chose my top three and had them printed on canvas,” he writes.
He’s still not an artist.
deleted by creator
While some just snap a photo. And both are equally copyrightable
deleted by creator
If anyone deserves copyright over a photo, it’s the people that had their work photographed without permission. Then, the most deserving of the copyright are the camera and film manufacturers that made photography possible.
I think this is an angle that isn’t pften taken. The advent of photography was a very similar situation to the current advent of AI.
However, there are some crucial differences. For example, a photo can realistically be taken for personal use, which is either protected by law, or at least tolerated. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t have this going for it (you wouldn’t really go to the trouble of training an AI model for personal use). Even if the model and everything else is fully transparent and open source, it’s still gobbling up copyrighted data for commercial purposes - the model’s authors or the users’. Luckily, there is no AI fair use carveout (and I hope there won’t ever be one).
Another thing I’d like to point out: in the vast majority of european legal systems copyright isn’t called “Copyright”, but “Authors’ rights”, i.e. its primary purpose isn’t to restrict copying as much as it’s protect the interests of the author (not publisher/corporation, although this unfortunately got bastardised a while ago).
I can only hope the EU takes a reasonable approach to AI (that is, ban it from gobbling copyrighted work, require current “tainted” models be purged along with corporations paying reparations to the authors, as well as banning EULA clauses along the lines of “by signing up we get to feed all your information into the AI”).
By my first comment I was trying to point out the fact that the “time invested” argument isn’t that strong. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better arguments or that I don’t agree with the general idea, just that we need better arguments if we want to win this fight.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
it’s the people that had their art used without their permission to train the AI.
This is the least coherent argument I keep seeing against AI art… Every art student in the world trains on the works of other artists. They explicitly study the works of great masters to learn their techniques. But when an “evil corporation™” does it it’s now theft.
It’s literally wanting the laws to reflect who is doing something rather than wanting them to be applied fairly.
Right, learning their techniques, not cutting out pieces of said master art and pasting it onto someone else’s work. There’s already predecent for this when that one monkey took a photo and the guy that provided the: camera, scene and direction was denied the copyright because he didn’t do the work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Right, learning their techniques, not cutting out pieces of said master art and pasting it onto someone else’s work
Tell me you know nothing of art without telling me…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/yasumasa-morimura-sen-cun-tai-chang-portrait-futago
And AI doesn’t just “copy paste”. Have you not seen anything created by AI? People act like it’s just re-creating existing works for some reason.
There is a difference between studying techniques, ideology, history, and mediums to be able to use a style created by another artist in your own creative works, and putting all the creative end products into the ideas blender and churning out a product with no creativity and no intentionality to the application of the process. What’s the end game? At what point does human creativity become redundant and AI starts eating its own slop? Do human artists need to keep creating depictions of meaning or value or whatever else they find important to endlessly feed into the machine so it can duplicate them, missing any of the metaphor, subtext, and soul present in the original? At what point is it obvious that workers are having their labor stolen by the tech bro Soylent Green idea machine to enrich them at the expense of whoever’s life work they seemed to be slop worthy of regurgitation.
AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works, and cannot be validated at the same level as human artists. I, for one, would like to see a future where artists don’t just exist to feed into their machine betters.
AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works
An AI image doesn’t just pop into the universe apropos of nothing. I don’t think you can say there is zero creativity in the process. A human sat down, conceived of an idea, and used a tool to create it. What is at the core of debate is whether the result is a creative work made by the human or not.
I agree that the AI is not the creator of the work. But I’m not so quick to say that the person wasn’t either… Cameras have a lot of stuff they do for the human. You can’t credibly say that you create any photo you take with your phone. The billions of transistors and image processing algorithms do that. You chose what to point it at and when. And maybe some technical parameters. And when you prompt an AI you have full creative control over what goes into it as well. Hell - you could probably even copyright the prompt if it’s sufficiently creative! But not the resulting artwork?
We may not value AI art as much as we do traditional arts. But I’m very hesitant to say that it is not art at all.
Photography has far more depth, complexity, and creativity as an artform and comparing it to AI both misunderstands the process and does it a huge disservice. Even before lining up the shot, the photographer must choose the right focus length, exposure, and a number of other technical settings, then must choose a subject, perhaps modify the composition, and have the right timing.
Photography can be as simple as pointing a phone camera for a well timed moment or snapping a once in a lifetime shot with an expensive lens. AI art takes orders of magnitude less creativity or training to do well, because it’s stealing the work of people that have already learned the composition techniques and have done the legwork, which is just being shoddily regurgitated by the plagiarism machine.
its debatable who the artist is, however, because if you remove the ai from the picture he could never have made this, and if you remove the training data the results would also be different.
Realistically: everyone whose data this was trained on should be included as authors if its not just public domain
There were similar debates about photographs and copyright. It was decided photographs can be copyrighted even though the camera does most of the work.
Even when you have copyright on something you don’t have protection from fair use. Creativity and being transformative are the two biggest things that give a work greater copyright protection from fair use. They at are also what can give you the greatest protection when claiming fair use.
See the Obama hope poster vs the photograph it was based on. It’s to bad they came to an settlement on that one. I’d have loved to see the courts decision.
As far as training data that is clearly a question of fair use. There are a ton of lawsuits about this right now so we will start to see how the courts decide things in the coming years.
I think what is clear is some amount of training and the resulting models fall under fair use. There is also some level of training that probably exceeds fair use.
To determine fair use 4 things are considered. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
1 Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
This is going to vary a lot from training model to training model.
Nature of the copyrighted work.
Creative works have more protection. So training on a data set of a broad set of photographs is more likely to be fair use than training on a collection of paintings. Factual information is completly protected.
-> Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
I think ai training is safe here. Once trained the ai data set usually doesn’t contain the copyrighted works or reproduce them.
Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Here is where ai training presumably has the weakest fair use argument.
Courts have to look at all 4 factors and decide on the balance between them. It’s going to take years for this to be decided.
Even without ai there are still lots of questions about what is and isn’t fair use.
Hmmm. This comment made me realize that these ai images have something in common with collages. If I make a collage, do I have to include all the magazine publishers I used as authors?
Not defending the AI art here. Imo, with image generating models the mechanisms of creation are so far removed from the “artist” prompter that I don’t see it any differently than somebody paying an actual artist to paint something with a particular description of what to paint. I guess that could still make them something like a director if they’re involved enough? Which is still an artist?
I dunno. I have my opinions on this in a “I know it when I see it” kind of way, but it frustrates me that there isn’t an airtight definition of art or artist. All of this is really subjective
if you make a magazine collage you’ve already paid all the magazine authors for their work by buying the magazine. I know its not perfect, but at least in a collage situation there is some form of monetary trail going back to the artists.
If the AI company were to license their training data this would be an almost perfect metaphor. But the problem is we’ve let them weasel in without monetary attribution.
It comes down to how transformative the work is. They look at things like how much of the existing work you used and how much creative changes were made.
So grabbing your 9 favorite paintings and putting them in 3x3 grid is not going to give you fair use.
Cutting out sections of faces from different works and stitching them together into a franken face could give you enough for fair use if you made it different enough.
I don’t know how collages work, but samplers do pay every single artist they are sampling for their use of the song.
No but you don’t get it, they wrote a couple words and also they know how to use the spot healing brush in photoshop, they’re a REAL artist!
To be somewhat fair this prompt probably took quite a bit of work. Still way less than even producing it digitally but not a couple words.
everyone whose data this was trained on should be included as authors if its not just public domain
Weird how we make this rule only apply to computers.
I doubt any human artist would make the exact same works as they have if they were not influenced by the art that they were.
Why is it weird to have different rules for computers and humans? They’re pretty different…
So you’re saying the AI should own the things it makes?
Broken analogies aside, The twin major problems are
-
most the data is still intact that AI often recreates it. I think court cases about this are ongoing.
-
It breaks authorship chains. humans often have to wade through ads or buy products to ‘add data’ to themselves. So if you buy a magazine, you often contribute back to the source artists. or even cite them. AI does not do this. Which is why licensing datasets is a proposed solution to prevent AI from being a death spiral for creativity.
-
because if you remove the ai from the picture he could never have made this, and if you remove the training data the results would also be different.
How is this different from any other art? Humans are “trained” on a lifetime of art they’ve observed. Are they to attribute all of their art to those artists as well?
It’s a bit more nuanced than that, because a human can still develop artistic skills by observing non-artistic creations beforehand.
For instance, the world’s very first artist probably didn’t have any paintings or sculptures to build off.
I’m not saying I necessarily agree that the person isn’t an artist because they rely on external training data, but generative AI models most certainly need to observe other works to ‘learn’ how to make art, whereas humans don’t necessarily have to. (Although if someone were to make a reinforcement learning model based on user feedback as a way to entirely generate better and better images starting from random variation, that would make the original training data point moot)
Human beings aren’t automatons.
Yes, and…
are you suggesting the ai itself owns the copyright?
“”“Artist”“”
My thoughts exactly.
Super interesting. The guy claims is wasn’t just ai, that he performed alterations as well. If that’s true but he still gets shot down it might pave the way for AI being much more shunned in the world out of IP concerns on the output side rather than the training data.
You can’t copyright that music, game, book, screenplay or video because AI made some contribution.
Nah, that won’t work. As soon as corporations get involved they’ll carve out exemptions for themselves.
Corpos are involved.
deleted by creator
That douche punched a sentence into a computer and thinks he’s an artist? My god what have we become.
That douche punched a sentence into a computer
The jokes write themselves, folks.
Yeah, the joke is that someone thinks they can call themselves an artist by typing a sentence into a prompt on a computer. I get that you’re trying to call me out, but the failure in your joke is that I’m not claiming to be an artist. That douche is.
You’ve got nothing.
I mean, everyone knows writing isn’t art. It takes no skill to make something meaningful out of words.
Keep trying, you’ll get there one day.
You’ve got nothing.
That’s a matter of perspective.
Imagine thinking this is a salient point, lmfao. “oh, you criticise people writing text prompts on large learning model tools to generate art based on an amalgamation of everyone else’s stolen art, for claiming to be artists, AND YET, here you are writing text.”
it’s so fucking stupid. a work has to be actually creative and novel to be protected by copyright, most AI prompts would not meet the threshold of creativity and originality to benefit from protection.
Dude just pointed a camera, pressed click and thinks he’s an artist? My god what have we become. We could take that train of thought all the way to “if you’re not grinding up your own pigments and painting on cave walls you’re not really an artist”.
AI is a tool. I don’t have an issue with someone using AI and calling themselves an artist, as long as they’ve generated the AI model based on their own previous art. You teach a machine to mimic your brush strokes and color palette and then the machine spits out images as you taught it. I don’t see an issue there because you might as well have painted them yourself, it just saves time to have AI do most (if not all) of the work.
Problems arise when the AI is based on someone else’s work and you claim the output as yours. Could you have painted the image exactly the same way?
I don’t have an issue with someone using AI and calling themselves an artist, as long as they’ve generated the AI model based on their own previous art.
That’s, uh, not what happened here. And I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. Anyone with the skill to draw the kinds of pictures they want would simply draw the kinds of pictures they want instead of putting in tons of effort to get an AI to do it worse
Prompting an AI is not making art
That’s, uh, not what happened here.
I agree. He shouldn’t own that image.
And I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. Anyone with the skill to draw the kinds of pictures they want would simply draw the kinds of pictures they want instead of putting in tons of effort to get an AI to do it worse
I think that’s a matter of time until it becomes the norm. There was a time we painted literally everything and then photography came along. You could make the same argument against photography because back then photography needed setting up, the images were black and white and you could arguably do a better job painting it instead. However photography took over because you could spend the next how many hours or days painting something or you could go click and have the photo that isn’t as “high quality” but is close enough.
I think in the future artists will use AI to quickly prototype through ideas and when they get roughly what they originally envisioned, they take the AI image as a canvas and touch it up a bit. Sure they could paint it themselves and spend the next week prototyping all sorts of ideas before creating the final image, but would you really do that when you could spend maybe a day prototyping with AI and then another day to fix up the image? Maybe the image doesn’t even need fixing up, maybe the AI generated exactly what you imagined?
I think the statement “then photography took over” is doing a lot of work here. It’s incredibly inaccurate to say that photography took over as the primary means of visual creativity.
Photography took over as the primary means of capturing a moment. Sure it’s used artistically sometimes, but primarily it’s used for subjective reality. I would argue that painting, and especially digital painting, is at an all-time high due to the ease and relatively low barrier to entry.
I think that most artists would still prefer to paint something that they can consider “their art”, over typing a sentence and getting back a result. Sure, it’s neat, but it will never be anything more than a novelty, or a shortcut to generic results. The process of creation is only really 50% the final result, and the process itself is an important aspect and not just a means to an end.
Using AI just feels like a weird commodification of art - like using only pre-made Unity assets for a game and nothing else, and then having someone else make it for pennies.
I’ve seen so many bizarre “AI artists” cropping up, especially online, who legitimately try to sell AI art online for hundreds of dollars. I think the reasons people buy art can usually be put into three buckets: they appreciate the process that went behind it, they like the style of the artists or that painting in particular, or they find some meaning in it. If you wanted to buy AI art why not just prompt it yourself. What process, or artistic style, or meaning is even in AI art?
It’s not even like AI can be trained on an artist’s own works. It takes millions of samples to train AI, which a singular artist would never be able to produce. So, at some point, that model will have had to have stolen the content of its results from something.
It’s not even like AI can be trained on an artist’s own works. It takes millions of samples to train AI, which a singular artist would never be able to produce. So, at some point, that model will have had to have stolen the content of its results from something.
so i have no skin in this discussion, but i thought i’d point out that this is generally not how it works. there are image generation models trained on only public domain works (specifically because of concerns like what the thread is about). you can take a model like that and “continue to train it” on a fairly low number of works (20 to 200 is generally enough) of a particular style, which results in a much smaller (tens to hundreds of MB) low-rank adaption or “LoRA” model. This model is applied on top of the “base” model, morphing the output to match the style. you can even add a multiplying factor to the lora model to get output more or less like the style in question.
I think the statement “then photography took over” is doing a lot of work here. It’s incredibly inaccurate to say that photography took over as the primary means of visual creativity.
I think my context there was pretty obvious so it’s somewhat disingenuous to take it out of context. Photography has largely taken over portrait paintings. I think photography has also largely taken over scenic paintings. I never said it completely replaced painting, it became a tool in the hands of artists the same way AI art can become a tool.
I think that most artists would still prefer to paint something that they can consider “their art”, over typing a sentence and getting back a result. Sure, it’s neat, but it will never be anything more than a novelty, or a shortcut to generic results. The process of creation is only really 50% the final result, and the process itself is an important aspect and not just a means to an end.
And I think artist will use AI to come up ideas for their art and use the output as a canvas.
Using AI just feels like a weird commodification of art - like using only pre-made Unity assets for a game and nothing else, and then having someone else make it for pennies.
Because that’s the current use of AI. It doesn’t mean AI will stay this way.
I’ve seen so many bizarre “AI artists” cropping up, especially online, who legitimately try to sell AI art online for hundreds of dollars.
I’m not talking about those people and I’ve already mentioned elsewhere that their “work” can be considered questionable.
I think the reasons people buy art can usually be put into three buckets: they appreciate the process that went behind it, they like the style of the artists or that painting in particular, or they find some meaning in it. If you wanted to buy AI art why not just prompt it yourself. What process, or artistic style, or meaning is even in AI art?
Let’s say the artist trains an AI model solely on their own previous art and then releases some of those AI generated images. The person who likes the style or a particular painting, do they care it was made by AI? Doubt it, because it’s in the artists style. The person who appreciates the process that went behind it, is “I put my previous works into an AI model and the model generated this image based on what I imagined this image should be” really that much less impressive than “I imagined what this image should be and so I sat behind my drawing board and drew it”? As for meaning, the artist still chooses what to release. If they release something it must have a meaning. I think it would be extremely disrespectful towards an artist to claim the art they chose to release has no meaning.
It’s not even like AI can be trained on an artist’s own works. It takes millions of samples to train AI, which a singular artist would never be able to produce. So, at some point, that model will have had to have stolen the content of its results from something.
I thought we were talking about it from a philosophical point of view. I’m not about to predict the future and claim it could or couldn’t be done, but let’s say it could be done. Would that change your opinion?
People absolutely did rag on people like Turner for using pre-mixed paints. People absolutely did rag on photography.
Only the names have changed.
Ahh yes, the camera bullshit. Here we go…
Yes a photographer is an artist. They need to know light diffusion, locational effects, distance and magnification, aperture, shutter speed, and have a subject prepped and able to take direction. They also have to have an insane understanding of post process editing.
They don’t simply type a sentence into a computer and get beautiful photographs.
A child can produce the exact same image by simply typing the exact same sentence into a computer.
A child cannot be given a camera and be tasked to produce the exact same quality photo of a professional photographer- and succeed.
So stop with this bullshit comparison. It’s apples and oranges.
A child cannot be given a camera and be tasked to produce the exact same quality photo of a professional photographer- and succeed.
Um. A macaque did. And every photo a child takes with a smartphone is considered to be sufficiently creative as to be a copyrightable work. It doesn’t need to be “good” to be art.
“What is art” can be a difficult question. But “how difficult was it to create it” is not the answer.
Cool. You’re now a novelist because of That paragraph. Congratulations!
If a skillless child can reproduce it with no training but a command of their language of origin, it’s not art. You can give a child a camera but they’re not gong to be Ansel Adams. Yet you can give a child a computer and voilà! You have Stable Diffusion.
I’m not arguing this with you any further.
If a skillless child can reproduce it with no training but a command of their language of origin, it’s not art.
The art is in the eye, not the device. People made the same or similar claims about photography. “It’s just reproduction not creation!” “It’s just operating a machine that does all the work!”
AI is a tool - the person is the creative.
You may not like the art - but that’s not to say it’s not art. Either way I think it’s a creative work and worthy of at least the option to be considered art.
In my eye, AI isn’t art and using AI doesn’t make one an artist. In fact I think it’s an insult to at and artists that talentless hacks are now claiming the title when it takes a lifetime to develop a craft to become an artist.
It’s shameful.
In my eye Jackson Pollock is a no-talent hack who created meaningless crap that looks like somebody left a 2yr old unsupervised in the arts and crafts room at school. And I think it’s an insult to other artists that his work is so heavily prized.
But we’re talking about the quality of the work here aren’t we? Not whether it is a work at all. You’re effectively saying that you don’t value the work because it was easy. Which is fine - that’s your value call. But to deny that it’s a creative work at all is an entirely different thing.
Did you read the rest of the comment or did you stop after the first sentence?
I didn’t need to. The moment photography was brought up as a comparison, that’s all I needed to know.
AI is not art. Period.
Let’s say I’ve been an artist for 10 years. I take all my work and stick it into an AI model. That model starts generating images based on the art I’ve created in the past 10 years. Have I stopped being an artist because I put down the brush and picked up a keyboard?
How would a child produce the exact same image if they don’t have my AI model?
You did not stop to be an artist, you just stopped to make art and every kid is able to recreate what you did, because all it have to do is type your name in prompts.
More than that, every kid drawing with a crayons on papers or on tablet is more creative than you this time.
How would a child produce the exact same image if they don’t have my AI model?
That assumes you have a big enough data set to even make anything useful with just your art. And we know that that was not the case here
That’s not the case here and I think the artist in the article has no claim to that image. I’m against the general idea that using AI instantly disqualifies someone as an artist, which is what the other person believes.
The moment your art was run through AI, it was no longer yours, and no longer art.
I’m done talking about this. I stated my point, my opinion, and I have no intention to change it. AI is garbage.
If you want to be the old man yelling how the world is changing for the worse, go ahead. You are entitled to your conservative opinion.
Firstly, I agree with most of what you’ve said. However…
Problems arise when the AI is based on someone else’s work and you claim the output as yours. Could you have painted the image exactly the same way?
Is there anything in the world that isn’t a derivative of something else? Can you claim to have a thought that isn’t influenced by something you’ve heard, read, seen? Feeding art to AI is no different than a student walking a gallery and learning the styles of the masters. Is the AI better at it? Sure. But it’s still doing the same thing. If someone with eidetic memory paints like Picasso, are they not an artist?
To really drive home the point, if I have a friend that is an artist, like, a really good artist, and I ask them to paint something for me, say, a field with wildflowers in the snow, and they come back with something that looks just like Landscape With Snow by Van Gogh, does that mean my friend isn’t an artist? If I ask AI for that, and they come back with something like what my friend painted, how is it any different? We call them “learning” models, but we refuse to believe that they “learn”. Instead we call it “theft”.
I didn’t say I’m completely against imitation. I more or less implied that’s where lines start to blur. If someone spends their entire life learning Picasso and can perfectly imitate Picasso then I don’t consider that to be not art. Similarly if someone did that and fed it into an AI model that then imitates them imitating Picasso I think that’s still fine.
But if you throw in all the famous artists and have the AI generate an image could you really imitate it? Not only would you have to imitate how all of them paint and what colors they use, you should also be able to tell the difference which part of the painting was influence by which artist so you could imitate it correctly. And if we factor in that AI can blend brush strokes it becomes even more harder to actually imitate. That’s so muddy water it’s easy to make arguments for and against.
Congratulations! You’re now a journalist for having typed that paragraph. Man, you’re really racking up the careers here!
(Do you see the point here? Using a tool that does all the work for you, doesn’t make you comparable to those that spent their lives doing it without cheating. Just like typing something out using auto-correct doesn’t make you a journalist).
Removed by mod
Man. If coming up with apples to oranges comparisons was a skill, somehow I have a feeling you’d have AI do it for you.
Do you honestly think a farmer’s knowledge of crops, seasonal growth rates, harvesting times and techniques, using the right tools to promote growth, nitrogen/PH content of soil, and how to properly avoid blight is somehow the same thing as some kid knuckling a few adjectives into a computer and creating a pretty picture?
Fuck man. You are ALL the way out of gas here.
However, I’ll add that having punched up that ridiculous response, you’re now a world class comedian. Congrats!
Oh, and if they work on an assembly line, then no, they’re not a manufacturer- they’re what’s called a “laborer”. That’s how shit works. The company in your scenario would be the manufacturer. They would have done the R&D, designed and financed the machinery and produced the product.
Man, your school sucked.
Do you honestly think a farmer’s knowledge of crops, seasonal growth rates, harvesting times and techniques, using the right tools to promote growth, nitrogen/PH content of soil, and how to properly avoid blight is somehow the same thing as some kid knuckling a few adjectives into a computer and creating a pretty picture?
That’s all knowledge you need to produce crops and not fuck it up. By saying you can’t “fuck up” AI art you’re saying that the years of art school learning about composition and all other stuff is worthless because a talentless pleb like me has the same aristic vision as someone who spent their life studying art. Way to take a huge shit on all the artists.
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because AI can blend together the works of hundreds and create something unique, that it is bad?
I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m saying claiming it as your own original work becomes very questionable. If you want to claim AI art as your own work you have to use only your own artistic expressions in the AI model.
Is there anything in the world that isn’t a derivative of something else? Can you claim to have a thought that isn’t influenced by something you’ve heard, read, seen?
Yes, i have made something that wasnt influenced by anything else
I mean, I don’t believe you?
You teach a machine to mimic your brush strokes and color palette and then the machine spits out images as you taught it. I don’t see an issue there because you might as well have painted them yourself
This artist didn’t “teach” the AI anything though. No more than I “teach” my computer something when I do file search using operands like “+” and “-”
I’ve covered this specific multiple times already. My point was more against the general idea that anything AI related is not art.
oh look, someone who knows nothing about the topic spewing shite again!
So, you’re now allowed to be called a novelist because of that reply. Congratulations! Enjoy your new career!
because it was an expression of his creativity.
yeaaaah no chief, that ain’t it.
Oh gee so scammers aren’t getting protection for lying? Dang what a cruel world poor him…
/s
Good luck, buddy. AI output has already been ruled not copyrightable. As it should be.
Copyright and patent laws should die altogether.
This is stupid and I hope he gets his butt handed to him, but:
A federal judge agreed with the Office and contrasted AI images to photography, which also uses a processor to capture images, but it is the human that decides on the elements of the picture, unlike AI imagery where the computer decides on the picture elements.
Journey outside the world of API models (like Midjourney) and you can use imagegen tools where " the human that decides on the elements of the picture"
It can be anything from area prompting (kinda drawing bounding boxes where you want things to go) to controlnet/ipadapter models using some other image as reference, to the “creator” making a sketch and the AI “coloring it in” or fleshing it out, to an artist making a worthy standalone painting and letting the AI “touch it up” or change the style (for instance, to turn a digital painting or a pencil sketch to something resembling a physical painting, watercolor, whatever).
The later is already done in photoshop (just not as well) and is generally not placed into the AI bin.
In other words, this argument isn’t going to hold up, as the line is very blurry. Legislators and courts are going to have to come up with something more solid.
The rule is already human expression in fixed form, of creative height. So you have to demonstrate that you the human made notable contributions to the final output.
I’m sure that an argument can be made that the final output can’t be generated without the human-created prompt. Generative AI doesn’t output images on its own without a seed/prompt, much like a canvas doesn’t paint itself and a camera doesn’t open the shutter on its own.
Human involvement isn’t the rule though. Again, that which ends up in fixed form has to carry expression by a human. Otherwise everything from dirt stains to footprints you accidentally create would be under copyright.
The prompts aren’t generally considered enough because there’s too little control over the final expression, the same prompt can create wildly different outputs.
The prompts aren’t generally considered enough because there’s too little control over the final expression, the same prompt can create wildly different outputs.
AI art isn’t made by just entering a prompt, picking an output image, and calling it a day. There’s actually a lot more involvement necessary to get the final output to be what you want. Some more advanced pieces of AI art take hours of tweaking the prompt and redoing certain sections, balancing positive and negative prompts and their weighting, not to mention training a model in the first place and touching up the final output in Photoshop.
There’s a very big industry behind AI art right now, and they’re not just using DALL-E prompts to do it. Whatever your thoughts about AI art may be, there’s no denying that a large amount of human labor is involved in the creation of any piece.
How old is that judge that they think digital photography is the only possibility to capture an image? 15?
“put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”
This is an Onion article, right? No one can be this deliberately and hilariously ironically. Fuck AI, and fuck these techbros.
Womp womp
He did not make it. He essentially commissioned a machine to create an image for him using millions of pieces of art that were stolen from artists. It’s no different from commissioning an artist to draw something for you, except the artist turns out to be someone who traces bits of other people’s art, or copy and pastes it, and then you attempt to take credit for it instead by claiming that you made it. I predict that this lawsuit is not going anywhere as he does not have a proverbial leg to stand on.
What if he wrote the technology himself? Would that count?
What about games with “procedural generation” - does that count?
Last I checked, procedurally generated games all exclusively use their own internal assets. Apples and oranges.
Authors didn’t invent the alphabet. Painters didn’t invent colors. It’s rearranging pre existing work in a way that makes sense to the rules of a new system. Need a stronger definition to explain the difference.
Ah, I remember this image. It received some kind of award or something and created a stir when it was revealed to be AI gen. I can see why that would be incentive to want copyright.
I play with AI image generation all the time. No way do I see that as my work, there’s no skill other than positive and negative prompts, maybe feeding it a a starter image set or something.
Where it might be more concerning is if you use AI gen to create an 2D example of something, then an artist creates a 3D physical representation of the thing. Who owns it? AI famously is not good at creating “whole” things, but one can certainly interpret that image to make a whole of it.
I guess no one owns it, it’s like in the common societies mind or something, especially if it’s an ai model trained on free stuff found in said society.
Like a chair; paint it, draw it, build it, cannot copyright it but you can’t make an exact copy of someones fresh creation either.
I play with AI image generation all the time. No way do I see that as my work, there’s no skill other than positive and negative prompts, maybe feeding it a a starter image set or something.
I play with image editing software all the time. There’s no skill other than adding or changing marks, maybe using a reference or something.
