Hacker News Reader

If I wave my camera around taking lots of pictures, and then find one that I really really like I can copyright it. If I generate a bunch of AI images and find one that I really really like, I think I should be able to copyright that too. In both, the creative spark comes from discerning what has value.

View on HN

Careful with your wording: you don't generate AI images, the AI generates images. You use the AI to generate images. An argument could be made that the AI acts like the camera and the selection process is the creative act. The text hints at this when it mentions curation. But curation also provides a far more limited protection than authorship (e.g. consider the copyright of phonebooks).

Generally agree. But if it’s the AI generating the images then it’s also the camera generating the images.

There is a precedent that any work done in a data center on behalf of a user, because a user initiated the action, has the same protections as if the user had performed the action themselves. It has been used, in connection to copyright, to allow "cloud DVR services".

I'd argue that in the case of AI generated work as we see it now, especially if a prompt from the user is required, that work would not exist except for the action of the user, and is thus created by their action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com