Hacker News Reader

Comment by detaro | Hacker News Reader

It's far less general than the headline suggests, to the point of it being misleading:

The human behind the AI did insist that they had absolutely no part in creating the image, and the decision is taking that at face value. No human creator - no copyright. Since it's purely based on their input, it also doesn't look at questions like "was the AI created using input material that's copyrighted and might that have relevance"

It has zero applicability on "AI art"/code/text/... created by a human using an "AI" as a tool to do so.

But somehow this gets paraded around every few months as being some important decision...

View on HN

But was the "human behind the AI" also not involved in priming/training the AI about what to generate? Did the AI really decide what to create (and when to create) of their own volition?

Chances are they were not involved in training the AI, and just provided instructions to a website like DALL-E. If I give you a paragraph of instruction to write a book, barring any other contracts we make, I would be surprised to find anyone arguing I could use that paragraph to claim copyright over your book. The threshold of creative input we require for such a claim is higher than "More than zero"

But in that case there is another human creator involved, that's a key difference.

True, but we don't need to assume that without a prior claim, the standard for awarding copyright bottoms out at nothing. Copyright exists to serve a specific purpose, to encourage people to make substantial investments that they would not make otherwise if they could not profit off them. If the investment is trivial to non-existent, there is no reason for the government to protect it.

The decision is about "if we accept as fact that there was no human element, then this doesn't get copyright". Hence your questions are out of scope of the decision, which doesn't care if "no human element" is true or even possible, and that's why the decision means so little in practice, because once you consider those the situation changes.

If a train a monkey to paint, would I have copyright in his works? I doubt it - just the actual product of his hand, because I own the monkey.

There was the Monkie Selfie case.

Just a few questions before I decide what I think of this idea.

What exactly do you mean when you say "AI art"/code/text/... created by a human using an "AI" as a tool to do so.? I guess maybe a better question would be, how would the process you envision for generating AI art differ from the process that the human in this instance used?

It wouldn't, that's the point. The decision is about "if we accept as fact that there was no human element, then this doesn't get copyright". It explicitly does not consider the question if in fact there was a human involved and what that would mean.

I suppose the working model for this is if I created a website that generated art using AI, I don't own any copyright to the images produced.

I would expect if I used such software a number of times, and chose the one I liked the best, I could claim copyright over that image.

I wonder if there were any rulings over images of the mandlebrot set that would clarify it.

So that would give us a world where human innovation was effectively "shopping."

"Math class is tough! I love shopping!" - Barbie

I think I'm trying to describe the world we live in, and how the US copyright system works. A lot of creative work is just, 'Throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks', and essentially the business of 'curation' in art galleries is just picking what seems good out of a system generating massive amounts of random art.

That brings the question: in order for a work to be copyrighted, does a human need to put "some" effort into generating that work (prompt engineering, tweaking knobs, etc.) or does it suffice to click a "generate" button?

Clicking the shutter on the camera grants you copyright. As things stand, clicking a button is enough

To some degree this probably applies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

And that might lead to an argument that if the human doesn't hold the copyright the AI does, but then you are back to square one because you need to be a legal entity to hold copyright.

Not to be too pedantic but wouldn't that fall under the questioner's definition of fiddling with knobs?

I mean, if you have to point the camera, and set the fstop or set photo vs pano, or even just set the flash or what have you, aren't you kind of key to generating that image? (Even though you generated it with the press of the button.) I mean, if the human didn't point the camera and set the settings, it would be a different picture even if someone did push the button on a camera that was just sitting on a table say.

Of course, there is more to that than taking a photo. You have to be at the location. Aim at the subject. Possibly select other settings.

There is more to taking a photo, yes, but not to claiming a copyright, at least not in the US.

"Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who 'shoots' or 'takes' the photo."

https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/

Let's say a photographer sets up his camera, aims it, composes it, focuses it, etc. But he decides the light isn't quite right yet, so he goes for lunch. While he is away, his assistant clicks the shutter on a whim, capturing more or less the exact image what the photographer intended to capture. The resulting photograph's copyright belongs to the assistant, not the photographer.

This is in theory, of course. In practice, this would be difficult to prove, since the picture is likely to be on a roll of many other pictures for which the photographer does own the copyright. The assistant would need some definitive evidence that they clicked the shutter on that exact frame if they wanted credit for their work.

Also EU makes this different. Just taking a generic image. As in one that many other people would take might not reach level of originality and thus not entail copyright.

That seems like an easy place to introduce gatekeepers to allow some to keep copyright and disallow others based on political reasons

The concept of property is in itself political, because some have it and some do not.

Intellectual proterty is political. If you have a patent, I cannotncreate the se thing even if I came up with the idea independantly and neber heard of you.

You are using the power of the state to restrict my freedoms.

Speculation: this will hinge on whether or not that input can be considered a copyrighted work by itself. A prompt may well be too short, and if someone else could come up with the identical prompt in a natural setting and generate the exact same output then I would lean towards 'no', if it takes who gives the prompt into account then the answer might be 'yes'.

Or even more generally, does blindfolded painting while drunk, half by accident, for 3 seconds count? How do deliberate and skillful does it have to be?

Every single thing that is deemed uncopyrightable is a benefit to humanity. So there's something to celebrate even if that's not much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com