There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

quams69 ,

Cool. Ugly ass Ai trash

poppyxxx ,

The article says that he could have copyrighted the work if he disclaimed the AI generated source images in his application. The collage he created is copyrightable but he can’t claim copyright on the source images because they were not created by a human. If someone were to take his collage, he’d still be protected.

What’s significant about this is that this means that you can’t simply copyright an image you had ai generate from a prompt, there needs to be some kind of transformation, and if someone else got ahold of the original AI image before transformation they could use it freely as public domain.

Corkyskog ,

What happens if I use AI to generate images and then paint them? This is so confusing

Kyoyeou ,

Am I the only one that think the longue they reject it, the more it will participate to it’s story behind, and make it worth more and more, and make it more and more “outrageous” and continue etc to make it have more worth?

regbin_ ,

US has a shitty copyright system. Got it.

xodoh74984 ,

We’re gonna have some juicy legal battles when Hollywood start leveraging generative AI more and more

WhitePaintIsEvil ,

Pretty sure this case is dead. The copyright office did the same thing with the monkey selfies and the ai art piece from stephen thaler. That “void of ownership” is just public domain. Gonna be interesting what other kind of ai cases come up later though.

Johanno ,

If you compare the AI image that was used with the image that one the price after the artist enhanced it to that level you could argue that paintings from sketches are not copyright-able

Dangdoggo ,
@Dangdoggo@kbin.social avatar

Well if the sketch was made by the artist then no you can't, and if the sketch wasn't then the copyright board has a right to know, and he didn't disclose the original image.

Johanno ,

Idk if he has shown the ai image (which isn’t copyright-able) but it was discloed that AI was used in the process

poppyxxx ,

He’s allowed to copyright it as a collage, just not claim ownership to the source images.

When you say a painting from a sketch, what do you mean? Is it a sketch from another artist? If so, you can still copyright the painting, you just can’t claim ownership of the sketch, because you didn’t make it.

xkforce ,

Good. Maybe this could put a stop to the attempts by companies to gut their payroll and replace artists with software.

Chariotwheel ,

Ha.

A lot of money will fly and laws and views will change like butter in the sun.

xkforce ,

Just for once Id like to be optimistic

hardware26 ,

Using automation tools isn’t something new in engineering. One can claim that as long as a person is involved and guiding/manipulating the tool, it can be copyrighted. I am sure laws will catch up as usage of AI becomes mainstream in the industry.

Natanael ,

That’s already the case, but also it has to be substantially guided by a human because copyright only protects human expression and elements beyond what the human intentionally expressed are not protected. (Of course studios won’t generally admit how much human involvement there really were)

xkforce ,

I dont think AI is equivalent. It can create content without you being involved and in massive quantities. It is very much capable of decimating the workforce.

You have to remember that you exist in a capitalist system that would love very much to replace you with cheaper labor if it could and there is no human that can possibly work for cheaper than an appropriately trained AI.

The only way that an artist would have a chance to survive is either through maintaining the craft via the novelty of it. I.e hand drawn/painted etc. (Which would be progresssively easier to fake) Or to become one of the people that make prompts and dont actually generate the content themselves. And the latter group of people is going to shrink over time as AI gets better at making content with little input. So any precedent set now is going to cause issues down the line when the tide shifts in AI’s favor.

hardware26 ,

I agree that AI can decimate workforce. My point is, other tools did that already and this is not unique to AI. Imagine electronic chip design. Transistor was invented in 40s and it was a giant tube. Today we have chips with billions of transistors. Initially people were designing circuits on transistor level, then register transfer level languages got invented and added a layer of abstraction. Today we even have high level synthesis languages which converts C to a gatelist. And consider the backend, this gate list is routed into physical transistors in a way that timing is met, clocks are distributed in balance, signal and power integrity are preserved, heat is removed etc. Considering there are billions of transistors and no single unique way of connecting them, tool gets creative and comes with a solution among virtually infinite possibilities which satisfy your specification. You have to tell the tool what you need, and give some guidance occasionally, but what it does is incredible, creative, and wouldn’t be possible if you gathered all engineers in the world and make them focus on a single complex chip without tools’ help. So they have been taking engineers’ jobs for decades, but what happened so far is that industry grew together with automation. If we reach the limits of demand, or physical limitations of technology, or people cannot adapt to the development of the tools fast enough by updating their job description and skillset, then decimation of the workforce happens. But this isn’t unique to AI.

I am not against regulating AI, I am just saying what I think will happen. Offloading all work to AI and getting UBI would be nice, but I don’t see that happening in near future.

Honytawk ,

I don’t see the problem with getting replaced by AI or computers.

The goal should be that nobody has to work anymore. And we are free to follow our passions, instead of grinding our way through life in order to survive.

I know the idea doesn’t go hand in hand with Capitalism, but most things don’t so that isn’t unusual.

NotAPenguin , (edited )

Why do photographers get copyright over their pictures then?
They're just pointing a camera at something and pressing a button.

AI is a tool like any other.

Fisk400 ,

Because photographs don’t require other people photographs to work. It just requires the labour of the engineers at Nikon and you payed them by buying the camera.

Use an AI algorithm with no training set and see how good your tool is.

drekly ,

What if I used an open source algo with my own photographs as a dataset 🤔

Fisk400 ,

Then absolutely go ahead. That isn’t what the guy in the post did tough.

SkyeStarfall ,

I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to keep copyright then. Everything involved would have been owned by you.

That is a big difference to how other generative models work though, which do use other people’s work.

drewdarko ,

Because you would have to prove that the AI only learned from your work and it’s my understanding that there is no way to track what is used as learning material or even have an AI unlearn something.

Fisk400 ,

The people that is stealing art designed their algorithm to not contain proof that they stole art. If they are legally required to prove what training data they used in order to get a copyright then they will design the AI around that. That would immediately disqualify most of the current AIs because they have all been fed stolen art but I am sure they have the tech and capital to start over. And you know, Fuck em.

randon31415 ,

Did you know that it is illegal to take a photograph of the Eiffel tower at night? France lacks the right of panorama, and the lighting system was designed by someone still living. So photographs do require violating copyright law sometimes.

Fisk400 ,

no no. You are not REQUIRED to break other peoples copyright in order to produce something with a camera. It is something you CAN do if you want to. AI literally cant function without a library of other peoples photos.

Someone else brought this up in this thread and it is the only circumstance should be able to copyright an AI artwork. If you own the copyright to every single piece of art in the training data. If I take 10.000 photos that are mine and feed them into an AI that produces more photos that are entirely based on my work then it should be copyrightable.

randon31415 ,

Everything in this world is owned by someone, either privately or by the government. (Well, astrophotography is an exception, but I did say ‘in this world’) You CANNOT take a photo without pointing it at something that is owned by someone. Is photography theft then?

Fisk400 , (edited )

Owning something and owning the copyright to something isn’t the same. You cant just make insane claims about something and expect me to engage with it. You are fully capable of taking photos that you own with the current copyright framework or photographers wouldnt be a profession and nothing would have pictures of anything.

randon31415 ,

And, as you said, you are fully capable of taking images that you own with the current copyright framework and creating legal AI images. If you don’t see the parallel between the two concepts and instead revert to insults and name calling, well, then I think I’ll just invoke “don’t feed trolls” and move on.

Fisk400 ,

What insults and name calling? Shit, If I had known that you were this fragile I wouldn’t have bothered to respond properly and just called you retarded.

Shazbot ,

Let’s break down some of the confusion you’re experiencing.

  • When it comes to buildings there is indeed copyright on the building itself. The question is did you get a usage license from the owner to photograph the building for your purposes? For example if I were to get a written usage license for the lighting of the Eiffel Tower at night, and a location permit from the city I would be able to photograph it. This is common in commercial photography with contracts known as property releases.
  • Theft in regards to photography usually means taking photographs of classified or trade secrets. General photographing of buildings in public spaces would not qualify as theft but copyright violation as per the previous example.

If you want to learn more you can google “photography usage rights” or “photography license agreement” and deep dive the untold number of blog posts about it. You can check out this blog post for a crash course if you need good starting point.

If books are more your fancy there’s Nancy Wolff’s The Professional Photographer’s Legal Handbook and the American Society of Media Photographer’s Professional Business Practices in Photography; both are pretty old but a very easy to understand. John Harrington’s Best Business Practices for Photographers also goes into detail and is more recent, but very broad in what it covers. Technically, there’s the demo for fotobiz X which will let you make a sample contract from their templates.

I’m sure you’ll find more resources but these books were my go-tos when I was working as a photographer. If you feel like socializing you check out your local APA (American Photographic Artists) or ASMP (American Society of Photographic Artists) chapters. Not sure if membership is still a requirement for attending events but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

Th4tGuyII , (edited )
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

Because the human element is in everything they had to do to set up the photograph, from physically going to the location, to setting up the camera properly, to ensuring the right lighting, etc.

In an AI generated image, the only human element is in putting in a prompt(s) and selecting which picture you want. The AI made the art, not you, so only the enhancements on it are copywritable because those are the human element you added.

This scenario is closer to me asking why can't I claim copyright over the objects in my photograph, be

This scenario is closer to me asking why I can't claim the copyright of the things I took a photograph of, and only the photograph itself. The answer usually being because I didn't make those things, somebody/something else did, I only made the photo.

Edit: Posted this without realising I hadn't finished my last paragraph. Oops

NotAPenguin , (edited )

It's honestly pretty much the same with ai, there's lots of settings, tweaking, prompt writing, masking and so on.. that you need to set up in order to get the result you desire.

A photographer can take shitty pictures and you can make shitty stuff with AI but you can also use both tools to make what you want and put lots of work into it.

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

The difference is it's not you making the art.

The photographer is the one making the photo, it is their skill in doing ehat I described above that directly makes the photo. Whereas your prompts, tweaking, etc. are instructions for an AI to make the scenery for you based on other people's artwork.

I actually have a better analogy for you...

If I trained a monkey to take photos, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting photo are, I don't own those photos, the monkey does. Though in actuality, the work goes to the public domain in lieu as non-human animals cannot claim copyright.

If you edit that monkey's photo, you own the edit, but you still don't own the photo because the monkey took it.

The same should, does currently seem to, apply to AI. It is especially true when that AI is trained on information you don't hold copyright or licensing for.

SkySyrup ,

Actually, that’s a really good analogy, and it helped me think about this in a different way.

What if the monkey is the camera in this situation, and the training the monkey part is like designing the sensor on the camera. You can copyright the sensor design(AI Model), and the photo taken using the sensor (output), so the same should apply to AI art, shouldn’t it?

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

You're losing the analogy here because these things aren't analogous. You can only copyright what comes out of the sensor because you took the photograph. Not everything that comes out of a camera sensor is copyrightable, such as photos taken by non-humans.

There's a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction. When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

SkySyrup ,

When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

I understand what you mean, but you’re still directing the Camera; you’re placing it, adjusting the shot, perfecting lighting etc. Isn’t AI art the same? You have a direct hand in making what you want; through prompting, controlnet, Loras and whatever new thing comes along.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

No, because the human involvement in creating AI art is so little that it’s considered de minimis --i.e. so minimal that it’s not worth talking into account. All you’re doing is putting a prompt into the generator–regardless of how much time and effort you put into crafting the prompt, it’s the AI interpreting that prompt and deciding how to convert it into an image, not you. In comparison, when you take a photograph, you’re interpreting the scene, you’re deciding that the object you’re photographing is interesting enough for a photo, you’re deciding what should and shouldn’t be in the shot, you’re deciding the composition of the shot, and you’re deciding what settings and filters to use in the shot.

It’s like the difference between someone taking a sketch of a model and making 20 revisions/alterations to the sketch before inking/coloring it, and a picky commissioner paying an artist to draw something and asking the artist to make 20 revisions before approving color/lines.

SkySyrup ,

I get where you’re coming from about human involvement in AI art. But consider this: the artist isn’t just dropping a prompt and walking away. They’re often curating the dataset, fine-tuning the model, and making tons of decisions that influence the final piece. It’s kind of like a movie director who shapes every scene even if they’re not on camera.

Also, AI art usually isn’t a one-shot deal. Artists go through multiple iterations, making tweaks and changes to get to the final result. Think of it as sculpting, chipping away until it feels right. It takes hundreds if not thousands of different tries with prompts.

And don’t underestimate the prompt. A well-crafted prompt can guide the AI in ways that make the end product unique and meaningful. So while the AI is a tool, the human is still very much the artist here.

veloxization ,
@veloxization@yiffit.net avatar

I think about it along this analogy:

You ring up your artist friend and would really like to see this specific thing drawn. Your friend gets inspired and is happy to oblige completely for free as they make art for fun. You give them specifications, they send you progress pictures and you tell them how to tweak those WIP pictures until you get the piece you envisioned, drawn by this artist friend of yours.

Now, who owns the work? The artist, right? You don’t get to claim ownership just because your instructions got that piece done.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

And yet that effort to make something from AI is trivial compared to the effort required to become a professional artist or photographer. If I commission art from a human, I’m curating and fine-tuning the output by browsing the artist’s gallery, deciding which artist to commission based on their art style, deciding on a prompt to give the artist, and revising the output by adjusting my prompt based on the artist’s preliminary sketch. Yet despite all that effort, I don’t get the copyright for the completed artwork, because I didn’t make it.

I wholeheartedly and completely reject the notion that human creativity has any more than de minimis influence on AI art. It’s no more a tool than an actual live artist is a tool.

SkySyrup ,

I disagree on the notion that a person that prompted the AI didn’t „make“ the picture. This is the same argument as with digital art, you aren‘t making it, you are simply moving your pen on a screen to create lines and fillings to impress an image. (Also, when it was becoming popular a lot of artists complained that is wasn’t „real art“). To be fair, what someone thinks is art is quite subjective (many people scoff at these random blocks standing around in cities like statues) so it’ll ultimately be up to the lawmakers (that mark my word will lobby to eternity for this to exist) to decide. I respect your opinion, but don’t agree with it. It’s not like you or I can’t enjoy something just because someone else doesn’t.

SkySyrup ,

I disagree on the notion that a person that prompted the AI didn’t „make“ the picture. This is the same argument as with digital art, you aren‘t making it, you are simply moving your pen on a screen to create lines and fillings to impress an image. (Also, when it was becoming popular a lot of artists complained that is wasn’t „real art“). To be fair, what someone thinks is art is quite subjective (many people scoff at these random blocks standing around in cities like statues) so it’ll ultimately be up to the lawmakers (that mark my word will lobby to eternity for this to exist) to decide. I respect your opinion, but don’t agree with it. It’s not like you or I can’t enjoy something just because someone else doesn’t.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

It’s literally not the same as digital art and I find the comparison offensive. One is a human directly putting pixels on the screen, the other is output from a program that processed millions of pieces of actual artwork into the creative equivalent of pink slime.

kmkz_ninja ,

It is interesting that you could spend a week tweaking the variables in your prompt to get the desired results in your image, and that won’t be considered art.

But spend a second to click a button on a camera someone else made and voila, art…

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

It’s interesting that you completely missed the point of my post and how there’s a fundamental difference between taking a photo and typing a prompt into an AI. :D

kmkz_ninja ,

There’s a physical difference sure, in that one is way easier to use as it’s just a button you press while looking at something.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

And generative AI is literally just typing shit into a computer without even needing to travel anywhere to get something even mildly interesting.

I know reading comprehension and wit isn’t the strongest point of AI chuds but you could at least fucking put a little effort into your trolling.

kmkz_ninja ,

Taking a photo on my phone is literally pointing it at something and pressing a button, yet I own the rights to that.

An argument against the work involved in AI art is fucking stupid, and anybody who makes it is stupid.

Talk about how AI art devalues real art. Talk about how (as it has been popularized), it literally steals from legitimate artists.

The " AI isn’t really work" argument is stupid, and I’m tired of it.

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

It doesn't matter who made the camera, in the same way it doesn't matter who made an artist's paintbrush and canvas.

It is the human's direct involvement in choosing what to take a photograph of, and in taking that photo that determines it as art, even if it turns out to be shitty art.

The problem with AI is that no matter how good your prompting is, ultimately you're not the one doing the painting, the AI is.

The camera is a tool you directly control, the AI is an independent entity acting on your instruction. They're not the same, and that distinction is fundemental to this arguememt.

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

The camera simply puts what you see through the viewfinder into a form that can be stored, you're the one who decides everything about the shot.

Whereas no matter how good your prompting is, it is ultimately the AI who interprets your parameters, who creates the images for you. It is the one doing the artistic work.

Do you not notice the difference? As I said in my last reply, your camera is a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do. An AI acts independently of you based on your instruction. It is not the same thing.

Also, I absolutely agree with @Eccitaze

stoneparchment ,
@stoneparchment@possumpat.io avatar

Actually… If an animal you own/trained makes art… you did get to have the copyright to the art, until recently with these same legal developments. Now it’s less clear.

I also agree more with the other posters interpretation in general. We copyright art made by random chance emergent effects (Polluck et al.), process based art (Morris Louis et al.), performance art (so many examples… Adrian Piper comes to mind), ephemeral art, math art, and photography, as the poster says. None of those artists are fully in control of every aspect of the final project- the art makes itself, in part, in each example.

If a human uses a math equation for the geometric output of a printer, and they tweak the variables to get the best looking output, we consider that art by law. Ai is exactly the same.

It’s funny, I find that illustrators hate ai art, but “studio” artists (for lack of a better term) usually adore it

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

Actually… If an animal you own/trained makes art… you did get to have the copyright to the art, until recently with these same legal developments. Now it’s less clear.

If you're referring to Wikimedia's infamous Monkey Selfie Dispute, which is the case I'm most aware of, then the reason its less clear is because its hard to determine the sufficient amount of human creativity required to render a human copyright over an animals work.

I'd argue that last bit doesn't apply to the AI, because while you do provide inspiration in terms of your prompting, tweaking, etc., it is ultimately always the AI that interprets those prompts and creates the artwork. Supervising an AI is not the same thing as setting up and taking a photograph, or drawing a painting.

We copyright art made by random chance emergent effects (Polluck et al.), process based art (Morris Louis et al.), performance art (so many examples… Adrian Piper comes to mind), ephemeral art, math art, and photography, as the poster says. None of those artists are fully in control of every aspect of the final project- the art makes itself, in part, in each example.

If you're going to cite artists, it would be a good idea to at least link their work for context for those who aren't in the know... As I don't know these artists, I can't make an informed response, so I'll move on.

If a human uses a math equation for the geometric output of a printer, and they tweak the variables to get the best looking output, we consider that art by law. Ai is exactly the same.

There's a big difference between a human designing a math formula to output a desired geometry, and a human instructing an AI to do the same.

By having the AI do the artistic work, it'll always be the one making the artistic choices based on your instruction, and therefore the art is not yours to own.

TORFdot0 ,

The scene isn’t copyrighted, anyone could go to the scene (theoretically) and take their own photo from a different angle. What’s copyrighted is the expression that went into staging the shot.

An AI tool is the one doing the creative expression when generating its images is the argument. The prompt is where the creative expression of the user ends, and copyrighting just a phrase seems ridiculous. I tend to agree with these sort of arguments, especially when models like this are often trained on other people’s copyright work.

nxfsi ,

If those people have ever tried actually using image generation software they will know that there is significant human authorship required to make something that isn’t remotely dogshit. The most important skill in visual art is not how to draw something but knowing what to draw.

A_Wild_Alt_Appears ,

Thats honestly a fair point. I think I often feel lot of hostility towards ai, because a lot of aspects of how its being used or the arguments made by its proponents don’t sit right with me, but its clear our systems need to evolve to handle ai and ai created content more appropriately

akulium ,

So if I tell someone else to draw something, who gets the copyright?

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

If someone is doing work for you, you get the copyright. That’s how it always worked

stevexley ,

That's only with the artist's agreement though isn't it? Usually because you're paying them. In this case the artist isn't a person so can't grant you the copyright (I think)

SkyeStarfall ,

Yes, in practice this would be a contract with the artist deciding whether the copyright is transferred or not.

Because by default, if you commission someone to draw something for you, they keep the copyright.

Meowoem ,

Yeah it’s called work for hire, if you’re employed to do something then you have to agree who gets the copyright before you do the work.

AI art isn’t copyrightable because it’s the output of a mathematical equation and most sane places decided your can’t copyright math - imagine if Microsoft had been able to lock down percentages and no one else was allowed to use them, or of if every bit of electronics had to use sub-optimal voltage values because apple were sitting on a patent blocking people from using the most efficient options.

Copyright was only really invented so the rich can block people from expressing themselves and allow them to manipulate society, it so goes back to when queen Elizabeth decided that her friend should be the only person allowed to make money from salt, a commodity we’d been using for tens of thousands of years at that point. It’s all rent seeking and attacks on the poor.

treefrog ,

Then it’s public domain according to cases so far.

xkforce ,

This isnt always the case. Tattoos for example, are commissioned and paid for but the actual copyright often resides with the artist not the person that paid for the work.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@kbin.social avatar

Yes, the artist must agree that copyright transfer is part of the agreement. By default ownership is with the artist.

trashgirlfriend ,

Depends on your agreement.

I think by default if there’s no contract saying otherwise, the copyright stays with the original artist.

Fisk400 ,

I would argue that the artist produces the copyright and transfers it to you. If the artist isn’t human and cant produce copyrights then it cant sell it to you. A lot of argumentation here is that we should treat AI like we treat a human artist. That is an insane line to go down because that would make any AI work effectively slavery.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

Hahaha, hahaha, no. That is absolutely NOT the default arrangement. Unless otherwise negotiated in the contract, the artist retains the copyright for the produced work and is free to use it as they please, including putting it in their portfolio, making further edits to the work, reusing it for other purposes, etc. The commissioner gets a copy of the finished product, but by default has few rights to use it themselves. Technically, I’ve personally infringed an artist’s copyright by cropping a work I commissioned from them to use as an icon. However, the vast majority of artists don’t typw enforce this aspect of their IP rights, due to a lack of resources and also because it would shred their reputation and kill their business.

Explicit transfer/licensure of copyright can be negotiated, but the most artists charge an extremely hefty fee for transferring the full copyright, often double or triple the price of the work itself. Most individual commissioners don’t bother as a result, but commercial organizations looking to reuse the commissioned work must negotiate a license for the work in order to avoid a nasty infringement lawsuit.

Fisk400 ,

I don’t know where the “Hahaha, hahaha, no” comes in. Everything I said is supported by what you said. What part of my comment isn’t true?

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

The way your response was worded came across as saying that the default arrangement is the commissioner receiving the copyright for the art unless otherwise specified, not the artist. My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.

Fisk400 ,

Then why does all AI need to harvest the work of millions of artists in order to create one mediocre painting? Millions upon millions of hours of blood sweat and tears is hidden behind that algorithm. Thousands of people starting to draw when they are 5 and never stopping in order to get as good as they are.

All big AI services refuse to disclose the training set they use and those that we know anything about absolutely uses copyrighted material from artist that didn’t consent to be part of the training set.

This is what fuels my contempt for AI. People that uses literal billions of dollars of stolen time and talent and then pretend that actually having ideas is the important bit.

Skua ,

I mean, I agree that the developers of these AI tools need to be made to be more ethical in how they use stuff for training, but it is worth noting that that's kind of also how humans learn. Every human artist learns, in part, by absorbing the wealth of prior art that they experience. Copying existing pieces is even a common way to practice.

drewdarko ,

The difference is a human artist can then make new unique art and contribute to the craft so it can advance and they can make a living off it. AI made art isn’t unique, it’s a collage of other art. To get art from AI you have to feed it prompts of things it’s seen before. So when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.

Skua ,

My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they've seen before and meanings associated with them.

it’s a collage of other art

This is genuinely a misunderstanding of how these programs work.

when AI is used for art it takes jobs from artists and prevents the craft from advancing.

Because the only art anyone has ever done is when someone else paid them for it? There are a lot of art forms that generally aren't commercially viable, and it's very odd to insist that commercial viability is what advances an art form.

I do actually get regularly paid for a kind of work that is threatened by these things (although in my case it's LLMs, not images). For the time being I can out-perform ChatGPT and the like, but I don't expect that that will last forever. Either I'll end up incorporating it or I'll need to find something else to do. But I'm not going to stop doing my hobby versions of it.

Technology kills jobs all the time. We don't have many human calculators these days. If the work has value beyond the financial, people will keep doing it.

treefrog ,

My point is that this description literally applies just as much to humans. Humans are also trained on vast quantities of things they’ve seen before and meanings associated with them.

In which case the machine would get the copyright (which legally they can’t now), not the prompter.

Skua ,

I agree. Well, that is assuming there's no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article, and there usually is if you want to get something actually good. The piece referenced was entered in to a photomanipulation and editing category too, which seems like it's very much in keeping with the spirit of the competition. But the reason I said that was because the comment I was replying to wasn't about who has the copyright of the tool's output, it was about the value of the output and tools in general

treefrog ,

The tools are valuable for sure.

Where the law is on copyright it looks like we’re figuring out. For now I’m glad to see rulings like this as it will, hopefully, take some of the wind out of Hollywood studios and aide union negotiations.

paintbucketholder ,

Well, that is assuming there’s no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article

If there was, then the artist should have discussed those heaps of human editing that went into the creation of this piece of art, and he would have been granted a copyright.

The fact that he refused to disclose what - if anything - was done after the AI spit out the result is what resulted in him not being granted copyright.

Skua ,

He did? This article mentions it only briefly, but he talked about it more when it was first getting attention for winning the competition. Is this something he did in the court case that you've read elsewhere?

But also, if you used Midjourney at the time that the image was made, you'll know that you did not get an image like that straight out of it

paintbucketholder ,

This wasn’t a court case.

This was a copyright application.

The Copyright Office asked him to provide them with an unedited version of the image generated by Midjourney in order to determine how much (human) work went into the final version.

Allen refused to provide them with an unedited version, so the Copyright Office had no way to verify how much or how little work was actually done by the artist compared to work that was done by the AI, so they had to assume that the vast majority of the work was done without any human artistic contribution.

They were essentially forced to reject his copyright application because he refused to provide evidence that he actually did any kind of creative artistic work.

Honytawk ,

Copyright just isn’t compatible with AI, we need to abolish it.

If a picture gets generated, who is the owner? The one writing the prompt? The AI that generated it? The researchers that created the AI? The artist on which the picture is based?

How about none of them? It is a picture, a piece of information. It doesn’t need an owner.

treefrog ,

Can we get UBI before we start abolishing people’s income though?

drewdarko ,

Human brains don’t have perfect recollection. Every time we retell a story or remember a memory or picture an image in our head it is distorted with our own imperfections.

When I prompt an AI to create an image it samples the images it learned from with perfect recollection.

AI does not learn the same way humans do.

cole ,
@cole@lemdro.id avatar

This is incorrect actually. The models these AIs run from by definition have imperfect recall otherwise they would be ENORMOUS. No, that’s actually exactly the opposite of how these work.

They train a statistically weighted model to predict outputs based on inputs. It has no actual image data stored internally, it can’t.

drewdarko ,

This is incorrect actually. The models these AIs run from by definition have perfect recall and that is why they require ENORMOUS resources to run and why ChatGPT became less effective when the resources it was allocated were reduced.

-ChatGPT

cole ,
@cole@lemdro.id avatar

No, they take exponentially increasing resources as a consequence of having imperfect recall. Smaller models have “worse” recall. They’ve been trained with smaller datasets (or pruned more).

As you increase the size of the model (number of “neurons” that can be weighted) you increase the ability of that model to retain and use information. But that information isn’t retained in the same form as it was input. A model trained on the English language (an LLM, like ChatGPT) does not know every possible word, nor does it actually know ANY words.

All ChatGPT knows is what characters are statistically likely to go after another in a long sequence. With enough neurons and layers combined with large amounts of processing power and time for training, this results in a weighted model which is many orders of magnitude smaller than the dataset it was trained on.

Since the model weighting itself is smaller than the input dataset, it is literally impossible for the model to have perfect recall of the input dataset. So by definition, these models have imperfect recall.

drewdarko ,

In other words they require exponentially more input because the AI doesn’t know what it is looking at.

It uses its perfect recollection of that input to create a ‘model’ of what a face should look like and stores that model like a collage of all the samples and then uses that to reproduce a face.

It’s perfect recollection with an extra step.

cole ,
@cole@lemdro.id avatar

Well, what you described is simply not a perfect recollection. It is many small tidbits of information that combined together can make a larger output.

That’s exactly how our brains work too

drewdarko ,

If our brains worked exactly the same as AI programming then AI wouldn’t be needed because it would be no different than how we are doing things without AI.

cole ,
@cole@lemdro.id avatar

I feel like you keep misrepresenting what I’m saying. Nowhere did I say that our brains work completely and exactly the same as AI. However, we do learn in much the same way. By amortizing small amounts of information and drawing connections between them

Skua ,

I'm pretty sure that the way they constantly fuck up hands is a solid demonstration that these AI tools do not have a perfect recollection

drewdarko ,

The reason they fuck up hands is because hands are usually moving during pictures and have many different configurations compared to any other body part.

So when these image AIs refer back to all the pictures of hands they’ve been fed and use them to create an ‘average approximation’ of what a hand looks like they include the motion blur from some of their samples, a middle finger sticking up from another sample or extra fingers from the sample pictures of people holding hands etc and mismatch them together even when it doesn’t fit in the picture being created.

The AI doesn’t know what a hand is. It is just mixing together samples from its perfect recollection.

Honytawk ,

What? No

How many pictures do you see online where the hands are in motion, or even blurred?

Hands are usually behind objects when they hold something and can indeed have tons of variations and configurations. Even human artists fuck up all the time or just not draw them at all.

AI don’t combine samples. If they did they wouldn’t be able to generate new pictures of whatever subject you want in a specific style you want and then have multiple variations of that picture.

It isn’t a copy and paste, it is interpreting the drawing and modifying it based upon the prompt.

FluffyPotato ,

What? Humans don’t learn to paint by looking at paintings, most people learn by just painting. Humans can also draw art without having ever seen any. AI on the other hand can only draw from other people’s works, it has no creativity of its own.

Fisk400 ,

Yeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn’t steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn’t work when you want to copyright stuff.

Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.

That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don’t personally think that is analogous but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.

Skua ,

There's a reason I said "they should be made to be more ethical" and not just "they should be more ethical". I know that they aren't going to do it themselves and I'll support well-written regulations on them.

but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.

Isn't it what almost your entire comment was about?

Fisk400 ,

The argument was basically “that is how humans learn too”. I accepted that analogy because it doesn’t change my conclusion that AI can’t be copyrighted. Had the discussion been about something else I wouldn’t have accepted that argument.

Venat0r ,

To play devil’s advocate: What about artists that use assistants, is using AI not the same as using an assistant?

Meowoem ,

All those artists did the same thing, they’re also only able to pursue art because the work of so many people before has made a world in which we’re so surrounded by luxury that they don’t need to work the fields just to survive.

As the famous meme so rightly states, we live in a society. I get that a lot of modern artists don’t want to help build a better society for all because they want to protect their privileged position in capitalism but that’s not really an option, you live by the sword of capitalism you die by the sword of capitalism.

Fisk400 ,

Artists. Famously part of the ruling class.

Meowoem ,

You can have a privileged position in capitalism without being the ruling class, beside we’re not talking about all the artists because a huge amount do art because they love creativity, expression and visual beauty - the ones who wage this absurd battle against emerging technology are either in a privileged position or who envision themselves in that privileged position in the future.

mriormro ,
@mriormro@lemmy.world avatar

Jesus, you AI people are idiots.

kmkz_ninja ,

See ya in 10 years, friend. We’ll revisit this conversation.

Meowoem ,

And you haters have nothing substantial to say beside screaming that the whole world should stop just so you don’t have to adapt to a changing world

The funniest thing is the current system isn’t even very good for artists, you’re fighting to protect capitalism when capitalism is shitting all over you but because you can imagine a situation where you’re slightly higher up the stack than other people you’re fighting desperately for your chance to shit on people below you. It really is shameful tbh.

mriormro ,
@mriormro@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t hate ai assisted technologies. I just think it’s hilarious that you’ve been ranting and raving about how artists are the true ruling class and ai is our how we break the chains of their oppression.

You see these technologies as somehow a means of democratizing all creative endeavors. I see these technologies, as they stand, as just the latest in the attempts of those who own the tech and data to siphon even more control, autonomy, and wealth from the rest of us

But yeah dude, have fun typing in prompts and feeling like you did something cool.

Meowoem ,

No one said they’re the true ruling class, the fact you have to purposely missrepresent what I’m saying to attack it makes it pretty clear your arguments hold no worth.

You say that AI is an attack on your wealth and autonomy because you see Art as nothing but a way of making money, from your comment about doing something cool you maybe have a vague notion that being an Artist confers higher higher status. You want to protect your status and earnings and that’s all you think about, I totally understand that but I think it makes for a very poor position to argue morality.

I personally think art is more than just a way to make money, there is great utility in the visual image practically, emotionally and socially. It didn’t kill art when people could cheat with Photoshop, it didn’t kill art when people could cheat with cameras, it didn’t kill art when people could cheat with quick drying paints… Giving people free access to diffusion based image generation isn’t going to kill art either and it’s certainly not going to limit anyone’s creativity or put restrictions on their freedom.

Sorry bout you were never the keeper of a forbidden jitsu, me being able to generate some images for my open source project isn’t taking away your special role in society or robbing you of your glory - you never had it to start with, it never existed anywhere but your delusions. The visual image is a utility which can be used for many useful purposes, why shouldn’t anyone with a story be able to tell it? Why shouldn’t anyone with a vision be able to depict it?

So yes when I make cool things using modern technology I will enjoy that feeling, it’s sad you’d try to take that away from me rather than celebrate others joy with them but it’s the capitalist mindset, you want to create artificial scarcity for your own personal profit, you feel that even something as pure as joy must be hoarded and that if others feel it then it devalues yours.

And I know it must seem I have something against you but honestly I just feel sorry for how deeply the brainworm of greed has poisoned your vision of the world, you fight for a system that only hurts you because you’re so focused on being a rung up from the bottom that you can’t even imagine anything but that fight for dominance which consumes you. All I hope is that you don’t get in the way of the better world that’s coming, because it won’t stop for you.

Fisk400 ,

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

mriormro ,
@mriormro@lemmy.world avatar

You’re making a lot of declarative statements about what I think and why I might think those things without me ever having stated any of those things.

You’re fabricating these hallucinatory talking points, which you’re ineffectually arguing against, in your own head.

Honytawk ,

It is funny how that “one mediocre painting” won the award while the human art did not.

chemical_cutthroat ,
@chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world avatar

It’s actually gotten significantly easier, which makes this artist’s work even more impressive. There is a very real chance they spent more time on this piece than other artists they were up against spent on theirs. I generate thousands of images a month, and sure, I can just take the first thing midjouney throws at me and be satisfied with 80% accuracy, or I can work and rework, each generation with diminishing returns, until I get to 98% accuracy and just accept that it’s not capable of 100% yet.

Squids ,

There is a very real chance they spent more time on this piece than other artists they were up against spent on theirs. I generate thousands of images a month

… you’ve never actually made art, have you? The sort of stuff that you enter into contests takes months to make, from the actual painting to rough sketches to reference gathering, and that’s just the basics

Clicking a button a thousand times isn’t really comparable

greenskye ,

I’m not at all disagreeing with the overall sentiment here, but having given it a go, I will say AI image generation is a very tedious endeavor many times.

It’s not just clicking a button. It’s closer to trying to Google some very specific, but hard to find medical problem. You constantly tweak and retweak your search terms, both learning from what has been output so far and as you think of new ways to stop it from giving you crap you don’t want. And each time you hit search the process takes forever, anywhere from 5 minutes to 5 hours.

I don’t really feel like this constitutes skill, but it does represent a certain amount of brute force stubbornness to try to get AI image generation to do what you want.

Squids ,

Ok using your Google analogy - there’s a reason why “librarian” is a job and “Googler” isn’t. One requires years of skill and practice to interpret a request and find the right information and do all sorts of things, and the other is someone kinda bashing keys to make Google give them what they want. You wouldn’t put them in remotely the same class

zazo ,

Software Engineers have entered the chat

petrol_sniff_king ,

I assume you’re joking, but I’m software and I would not classify these the same.

kmkz_ninja ,

… you’ve never actually made art, have you?

I drew a pony when I was 6? Does that count? Or does gatekeeping art go that far?

trashgirlfriend ,

Maybe if you spent some of that time you spend tweaking settings on midjourney practicing art, you’d make something worthwhile and not just generated content slop. :)

chemical_cutthroat ,
@chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, or I could continue doing what I enjoy in the way that I enjoy it, and you can fuck off with your judgemental comments.

trashgirlfriend ,

Enjoy adding negative value to the world

chemical_cutthroat ,
@chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world avatar

You making up a To-Do list of things you’ll try to accomplish today?

dfc09 ,

If I took a few hours to make an impressive AI generated price of art, that’s still %0.0001 the amount of time an actual a real artist would’ve spent developing the skill and then taking the time to make the peice. I get to skip all that because AI stole the real artists’ works.

NotAPenguin ,

What about photographers?

I don't think "amount of work" is a good measurement for copyright, if you scribble something in 2 seconds on a piece of paper you still own the copyright, even if it's not a great piece of art.

dfc09 ,

I’m pretty specifically trying to bring to mind the time it takes to hone the skill. Photography is similar in that it takes many many hours to get to the point where you can produce a good work of art.

If an artist (or photographer) spends a couple hours on a peice, that’s not the actual amount of time needed. It takes years to reach the point where they can make art in a few hours. That’s what people are upset about, that’s why nobody cares about “it took me hours to generate a good peice!”, because it takes an artist 10,000 hours.

What AI art is doing is distilling that 10,000 hours (per artist) into a training set of 99% stolen works to allow someone with zero skill to produce a work of art in a few hours.

What’s most problematic isn’t who the copyright of the AI generated age belongs to, it’s that artists who own their own works are having it stolen to be used in a commercial product. Go to any AI image generator, and you’ll see “premium” options you can pay for. That product, that option to pay, only exists on the backs of artists who did not give licensing for their works, and did not get paid to provide the training data.

greenskye ,

People have made millions off of photographs despite having zero training and only casually snapping the photo. You can get lucky, or the subject of your photo might be especially interesting or rare (such as from a newsworthy event).

I think we need something more nuanced than ‘effort input’

kmkz_ninja ,

Photographers must have downvoted you. You don’t have to be skilled to take a really good photo. You do have to be skilled to it regularly, though.

Natanael ,

The law is about human expression, not human work. That which a human expressed (with creative height) is protected, all else is not

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

Look, if I train a monkey to draw art, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting art is, I don't own that art, the monkey does.

As non-human animals cannot copyright their works, it then thusly defaults to the public domain.

The same applies to AI. You train it to make the art you want, but you're not the one making the art, the AI is. There's no human element in the creation itself, just like with the monkey.

You can edit or make changes as you like to the art, and you own those, but you don't own the art because the monkey/AI drew it.

kmkz_ninja ,

Does my camera own my art, and not me?

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

No, because there's a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction.

When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

It's as silly as asking if your paintbrush owns your art as a response to being told that you can't claim copyright over art you don't own.

uint8_t ,

you control the seed, control the prompt — you can get the “AI” to produce the very same image if you want. so yes, you do have

a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

That's like saying you can control the sun for a photo because you can predict where it will be at a given time.

The fact that an AI can be deterministic, in that the same "seeds" will generate the same images, doesn't at all invalidate my point that it is still the one interpreting the "seeds" and doing the actual image generation.

kmkz_ninja ,

That’s like saying you can control the sun for a photo because you can predict where it will be at a given time.

You’re the one gatekeeping work. Don’t make a dumb argument against your own dumb argument.

If the argument against AI is that it’s too little work, then Photography neesds to step it’s fucking game up.

If the argument against AI is that irrelevant companies get to profit off of others’ work, then say that. Don’t make stupid arguments.

Edit: Do I have direct control of the LLMs that Samsung uses to sharpen the photos on my phone? Do I not still own them? You’re yelling at clouds.

uint8_t ,

I think it’s very hard to make the argument that photography is “real art” AND that the output of a diffusion model is never.

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

I think you're getting things mixed up here...

I'm not arguing the output of an AI cannot ever be art, there are beautiful AI works out there, just as there are beautiful photos out there.

What I am arguing is you can't claim it to be your art.

Prompting isn't enough of a creative element to take ownership over the art an AI outputs, especially if you don't own the training data used for the AI. As such, you cannot (nor should you be able to) claim copyright over it.

If an artist takes requests and happens to pick your's, you don't automatically own the final piece just because they happened to use your prompt. The artist owns it, unless you pay them for that right.

In the case of AI art, the work would become public domain, since AI cannot copyright their works (much like non-human animals).

kmkz_ninja ,

To what degree do you consider AI involvement to be the deal-breaker. My phone uses something arbitrarily akin to generative AI to sharpen photos. If I take a photo with my phone of something novel, should I be able to copywrite that photo?

If I use an AI generated image and spend 24 hours manually tweaking and modifying it, do I have a right to copywrite?

If I use an LLM to synthesize an idea that I then use to organically create art, is it lesser art?

It all seems so arbitrary at this point. It’s like a typist in 2005 arguing that digital word processors shouldn’t be used to create copywritable art, as it takes significantly less work.

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

To what degree do you consider AI involvement to be the deal-breaker.

In one sentence, when you're editing the AI's work rather than the AI editing your's, you can't claim the original work as your's.

My phone uses something arbitrarily akin to generative AI to sharpen photos. If I take a photo with my phone of something novel, should I be able to copywrite that photo?

This being an example if the former... The AI is sharpening your photo that you took.

If I use an AI generated image and spend 24 hours manually tweaking and modifying it, do I have a right to copywrite?

Assuming it was transformative enough, I'm sure you could copyright your derivative work, but you couldn't then directly copyright what the AI generated.

If I use an LLM to synthesize an idea that I then use to organically create art, is it lesser art?

No, because like an artist taking requests, the AI is providing the prompt. You'd be the one drawing the art piece, putting in the majority of the creative effort.

It all seems so arbitrary at this point. It’s like a typist in 2005 arguing that digital word processors shouldn’t be used to create copywritable art, as it takes significantly less work.

Excuse my French, but how in the flying fuck is that the same thing?

Whether you write a document on a typewriter or keyboard, you're still the one directly deciding what words go on that page, and in what order. Every creative decision it is possible to make, you make.

When an AI writes for you based on prompts, you decide almost none of that. You give it a synopsis and it writes the whole script, essay, whatever for you.

There's a huge difference between those things! How is it so hard to grasp that?

Th4tGuyII ,
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

You’re the one gatekeeping work. Don’t make a dumb argument against your own dumb argument.

What I said was hyperbole, but it isn't invalid. You're claiming direct control over an independent process simply because it happens to be deterministic for any unique set of prompts.

But honestly, my arguement isn't that complicated...

If the argument against AI is that it’s too little work, then Photography neesds to step it’s fucking game up.

When you take a photo, you're the one taking the photo. You physically go to the location, you frame the shot, you're the one who has to make sure the lighting is right, even that the camera is set properly.

When you draw a art, whether paint or digital, you're the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw.

There's a clear human creative element not just deciding what to photograph/draw, but in how every part of it is done.

There's a reason most people hire a photographer for special occasions like weddings, and not just Bob down the road with his IPhone - good photography takes skill.

Whereas for AI art, all you're doing is providing instruction to the AI, that then goes on to make all these decisions. It connects the dots between your prompts, it decides where everything goes, what brushstrokes to make. It draws the art, it generates the image.

If the argument against AI is that irrelevant companies get to profit off of others’ work, then say that. Don’t make stupid arguments.

That is a valid argument, and one I actually have made before. If you don't own your training data, then how can you possibly claim ownership of anything that comes out of the AI, since it's not just inspired by that data, it is working/pulling directly from that data. But, that is not the argument I'm making.

Edit: Do I have direct control of the LLMs that Samsung uses to sharpen the photos on my phone? Do I not still own them? You’re yelling at clouds.

Now that is a stupid arguement. Having an AI sharpen an image you already took and own is not the same as having it generate the entire image for you by instruction and then claiming that as your own.

You could transform that AI work into something you own and claim copyright over that transformative work, but the original work the AI made isn't your's to claim.

By your definition, you could copyright a screenshot from Google streetview without doing anything transformative to it because you prompted Google where to take you, and decided where to screenshot.

kmkz_ninja ,

you’re the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw.

Does Photoshop or any digital art not count? I don’t have to have the skill to draw a perfect circle?

good photography takes skill.

So we should artificially handicap the art at the expense of the lesser abled?

Whereas for AI art, all you’re doing is providing instruction to the AI, that then goes on to make all these decisions

Same as clicking a button on a camera at something that just happens to be beautiful. Does it matter if someone next to me is using the same ISO or exposure?

I don’t have to realize the complexity of lighting, shaders, or materials to render a scene in Unreal. I get to utilize the processes that pioneers before me discovered.

I understand the frustrations, but this seems stifling in the same way that cotton-gin-phobes, typewriter-phobes, and computer-phobes wpuld have stifled the ability of the average joe to accomplish something.

Th4tGuyII , (edited )
@Th4tGuyII@kbin.social avatar

Does Photoshop or any digital art not count? I don’t have to have the skill to draw a perfect circle?

Did you read what I said or just start typing the moment you saw brushstroke?

"When you draw a art, whether paint or digital, you're the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw."

Of course digital art counts. While there are more tools for digital artists, ultimately they're still the ones drawing the art.

So we should artificially handicap the art at the expense of the lesser abled?

You could say this for literally anything gate-kept by requiring decent skill.

If you want to profit from a creative work you should have to make that work yourself. It's not difficult.

Same as clicking a button on a camera at something that just happens to be beautiful. Does it matter if someone next to me is using the same ISO or exposure?

Is this meant to be your gotcha?

The fact that two people chose to photograph the same thing with the same settings doesn't actually matter in my argument because each person still made the creative decisions behind their photographs. Each one chose those settings, even if they chose the same ones.

You can have art classes full of people painting the same thing, but they're all still their own works.

It's the fact that those people did the work and made the creative decisions that matters, not the what they chose to point that creativity at.

I don’t have to realize the complexity of lighting, shaders, or materials to render a scene in Unreal. I get to utilize the processes that pioneers before me discovered.

Guess what, that's why developers have to acknowledge Epic and their engine in any games they male with it, and why they have to pay royalties to Epic (over a certain amount of sales) - because the engine was their art!

You may not need to understand the exact lighting, shaders, etc. required to render the game, but you still made the creative decision to as to where light sources would be.

Just because the engine has AI powered tools, doesn't mean the engine just makes the game for you, you have to build it. The reason you even own the game is because you made those creative decisions.

If the AI tools just made the game, you wouldn't own it because you didn't make the game, you just provided the inspiration. At best you can claim copyright over that inspiration.

The person who wrote the Witcher books doesn't own the Witcher games, CD Projekt Red does, because they made the game.

The person that wrote the Metro series doesn't own the Metro games, 4A Games does, because they made the game.

Both pay royalties to their respective inspirations, because those inspirations are the works the writers own, not the derivative works. Just in the same way the developers don't now own the works they derived their games from.

I understand the frustrations, but this seems stifling in the same way that cotton-gin-phobes, typewriter-phobes, and computer-phobes wpuld have stifled the ability of the average joe to accomplish something.

No offence, but the fact that you're making those comparisons shows you clearly do not.

You're can act like I'm out here arguing against the democratisation of art, but that's not what I'm arguing against.

If you want to use an art AI to make you some cool art, go ahead and do that.

You want to use AI art as the basis of a creation you want to make, sure.

But to claim an AI art piece as your own and to then claim copyright over it as though you made it is wrong. That is what I'm arguing against.

AI art is art, but in its raw form, it isn't anybody's to own because nobody made it, AI did.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Because Mr. Allen is unwilling to disclaim the AI-generated material, the Work cannot be registered as submitted," the office wrote in its decision.

In this case, “disclaim” refers to the act of formally renouncing or giving up any claim to the ownership or authorship of the AI-generated content in the work.

In August 2022, Artist Jason M. Allen created the piece in question, titled Theatre D’opera Spatial, using the Midjourney image synthesis service, which was relatively new at the time.

The image depicting a futuristic royal scene won top prize in the fair’s “Digital Arts/Digitally Manipulated Photography” category.

In his appeal, Allen claimed that “the Office is placing a value judgment on the utility of various tools” and that denying copyright protection for AI-generated artwork would result in a “void of ownership.”

More recently, it also denied copyright registration for an image that computer scientist Stephen Thaler claimed was autonomously generated by his AI system.

The original article contains 536 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •