You've answered a different question. The work is copyrightable. It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort
>> Are the AI generated images copyrighted?
you wrote
> No, this is already established in the US.
What cases are you then using to conclude this?
>It is not copyrighted by default anymore than any other trivial non de minimis effort
I doubt de minimus applies, since the images coming out of this AI are no where near any originals that I've seen - they may similar style, but they're so completely different that they are almost all certainly copyrighted by the author.
For example, the simplest, littlest effort to snap a picture gives it full copyright. This AI takes more work to use than snapping a picture.
And de minimis would be on the infringer to prove - the owner still has a copyright until proven otherwise. So the images are most likely copyrighted.
Anything copyrightable in the US is automatically copyrighted by default upon creation. It's why any photo taken is immediately copyrighted by the photographer. Any painting is automatically copyrighted by the painter. Any computer art is automatically copyrighted by the computer operator.
I'd expect most of these works are copyrighted just as much as if someone painted them, or used blender to make them, or used a collage tool to merge self owned photos.
But not all pictures that a camera takes are copyrighted. The same applies to AI generated content.
To me asking if AI generated images are copyrighted implies the latter issue. If you're trying to answer a different question it's just an uninteresting semantic debate.
What case are you using to claim AI images are not copyrighted? The one I cited? Or another? The one I cited, the only one I can find, is not relevant here.
Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim?
No, again. The AI can be human operated, and thus it can produce copyrightable works. But it can also be operated by other things, so it is not by default copyrighted. Your own case as well as the monkey selfie are just fine for this.
> Why are you avoiding citing a case to back up your claim?
Our debate here is not defending premises with evidence, it's you not understanding what the premise is.
And which work in the entire thread up to you moving those goalposts was not human operated?
Blog post: "Stable Diffusion is a new “text-to-image diffusion model”". "you can try..." "type in a text prompt..." "and added a prompt..." and on and on.
In every example in the post, the images were created by human inputs.
Top post in this chain: "Are the AI generated images copyrighted?" Notice the "the" instead of "Are AI generated images copyrighted?" Did you miss that word? What "the AI" do you think this refers to? Some other AI that you made up to split hairs over, or "the" AI under discussion that is creating the art in this thread?
Did you notice no one except you in the replies to that comment misunderstood it? Not one person misread it, except you.
>it's you not understanding what the premise is.
Not a single item in the chain above you was about anything other than humans using AI to make images. You made up a premise to split hairs over, but it looks like that is your modus operandi judging from past posts.
I think you need to read the thread carefully before claiming others don't understand.
Have a good day.
>To me asking if AI generated images are copyrighted implies the latter issue. If you're trying to answer a different question it's just an uninteresting semantic debate.
I think it is important to note that works by the ai are not inherently copyrighted, and they certainly aren't copyrighted to the ai. It is different to by copyrightable.
It's ok if you think that's not a meaningful distinction. But I explained it multiple times and you didn't get it.
> it looks like that is your modus operandi judging from past posts.
Looks like yours is get tilted over nothing