It's odd to me that an image such of this is rejected unless labeled as generated by "AI", yet an image heavily edited in Photoshop or some other software with algorithms is not.
If I go to an artist and say "make me a picture with X, Y, and Z features", they own the copyright unless they agree to transfer it to me. An AI tool never owns the copyright to its work because it's not a person, so you cannot acquire the copyright on the work since you didn't generate it.
It's an entirely different process from using Photoshop (&c), and I think conflating them requires either a significant lack of understanding of how AI-based generation tools work (the most common issue) or a deliberate desire to confuse the issue.
We will need to seriously revise copyright laws in the age of AI because this new technology is simply not compatible with the assumptions the current ones are based on. (regardless how much lobby power are in them)
> The Board finds that the Work contains more than a de minimis amount of content generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”), and this content must therefore be disclaimed in an application for registration.
The human-authored portion of the work would be copyrightable if the author disclaimed the portions that were created by an LLM.
Not that it doesn't make sense to say what they did, but it seems not quite compatible with how copyright already seems to work in practice. Which is, instead another demonstration that copyright in general is a pretty internally-inconsistent system when it comes to the details.
Did you, perhaps, write the stuff that the autocomplete used as context to give you a selection of choices to make about what to put there? Because that still sounds like a human making choices about things to me.
This is a vaguely recognizable metaphor for prompt engineering, but I think you're orders of magnitude off in estimating the ratio of human choice to computer extrapolation. Sure, a compiler or something maybe is a better metaphor, but even then the concept, the source material is generated by a human.
You could say that a prompt is source material and the generator is just a compiler analogy, but I think they made the only choice they could here. Otherwise you can use a generator to make literally a billion images, copyright them all (including aspects you did not make a choice to add, like details on people in the background there), and control art for the rest of time.
This is exactly the “sweat of the brow” argument for copyrightability that courts have consistently rejected in favor of a creativity requirement since long before AI tools existed, though, so its probably not the argument you want to make for copyrightability.
Could the creator of the ai producing code then hold copyright, or maybe it’s those who found the weights?
This ruling seems to suggest any method of automating works would not qualify for copyright.
If so. We are just one step closer to abandoning the notion of a copyright, which still is the only logical solution in a world where we can have and do anything we desire at the click of a button.
The "creator" of the art in that case is also the creator of the system which generates the art. You didn't create Stable Diffusion, MidJourney or whatever else, it's just a tool you have access to.
I'm not sure if that's a difference that should matter, but it's clearly a notable difference.
Again, this doesn't strike me as a useful standard for copyright, but I think it's the state of the law today. Obviously with new technology there's a need to revisit the law, and honestly even without the new tech copyright law was already a steaming mess.
Are paint brushes just tools people have access to, does the manufacturer of the paint brush own the painting?
Prompts are no different than positions and angles the artist instructs the tool to motion. The only real difference is the ratio of perceived work to output.
Even a prompt could take years to derive. I am 40. And 30 years ago I could have not com up with the following, making the prompt below 40 years in the making.
“Field of dead dreams, with copyright monsters flying above looking for there next meal”.
Spell check fixed a few things, along with typo correction, does Apple know own a copyright of my work?
Sure the latter requires less labor and a very different skill, but it's still a creative act.
https://www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com/heres-a-running-list...
It seems like currently the chain of ownership is so complicated and spread out that its not feasible. But I dont see a good claim by another party in your case. Best one might be a library or hardware but thats getting ridiculous.
Im not sure about the process for this image and im not sure what I think is fair, but “AI generated” is a wide spectrum.
Stable Diffusion and the like are much closer to when photoshop first appeared than they are to than the completely automatic art generation machine people make them out to be.
I remember well both digital cameras and photoshop receiving initial criticism from "real" artists... until they were both widely adopted by these communities.
The critique of digital photography was that it's not really art because you can just take a bajillion pictures and then filter out the ones that don't look good. Photoshop users (especially web comic creators) got similar flack that it didn't take real artistic skill to make nice images in photoshop.
For anyone young enough to always have photoshop and digital photography will likely be surprised that there was such resistance and snobbery around using these tools. There was also the same fear that these tools would ruin art by making "real" artists obsolete.
The test is not "input", but "authorship". If you commissioned some art from an artist, you would have input on what they make but the artist would be the author and copyright holder of their work.
Its hard for me to accept that the prompter "authored" the output of an LLM. The output of the LLM was entirely generated and authored by the LLM. It did so at your command, but that doesn't count as authorship.
This was just a bad decision about copyright, the only reason to support this distinction is to protect art and artists.
Not if the computer program uses GenAI, at least without disclosing and disclaiming from copyright the GenAI contribution, under the current (absolutely ludicrous) Copyright Office interpretation.
> If I as a programmer do creative work (ie programming), it should have the same support.
It does: neither copyright law nor the copyright office defines classes of people (“artists” vs. “computer programmers”) with different effects on if they create artwork with the same type of automated tooling.
The copyright office may make a spurious distinction between GenAI and other tools, but it doesn't distinction between classes of creator the way you seem to think is an issue that needs corrected.
We kind of already have automated image-processing today, where does it change from cr to not-cr. I can take creative photos and then edit them and I can own the the copyright. If I took my photo and used automated improvement tools (like in google photo), I think it's still copyrightable. Now I take my automated outdoor camera at my house and take pictures of things, then I put them through google photos in my automated image pipeline, I guess they are copyrightable?
Then I use those photos as input into a non-copyrightable-by-definition system like midjourney or whatever, now the output is not copyrightable. Seems pretty arbitrary. If an artist creates an artistic work (lets say it is a mirror of people), it's cr. If I as a software engineer create software, that software is cr. But the output of the cr is not cr?
It’s very easy to spend hours iterating on prompts for the perfect photo while using human judgment to figure out how to steer the image. That’s meaningful human involvement and should be able to be protected.
I dont know where the line is though and that really blurs the line between “AI tools” and “non AI tools”. Probably the “grayest” example ive seen.
This is a factor in shaping the legal treatment of work generated with the use of “AI” tools.
Here's my argument:
1. Copyright in some sense is probably a net win for society.
2. Copyright in it's current legal form in the US is - fucking unquestionably - abusive.
7 years with a 7 year renewal after review? Probably ok, feels long in today's digital age.
To the author's death? oof, that's a long time to protect works, but maybe I guess, in some specific fields of work.
To the author's death PLUS 70 fucking years? Get the fuck out of here. Literally - who the fuck other than giant corporations is POSSIBLY benefiting from this? This is a fucking insane level of protection, and is outrageously harmful to generating new content (Just take a peak at all the fucking remakes that constitute our new films, and the miserable content licensing restrictions that pop up everywhere and kill so many new things)
---
So my stance is firmly: Yep, they probably are taking some of your work. But also: Your work is also grounded in the work of others (again - fucking unquestionably). Further - the copyright system at large is SO fucking harmful that I don't really think it should exist anymore (side note: I'm really underplaying my feelings here, "nuke it from orbit" is probably still an understatement... "I'd like to see it suffer before it dies" is probably close).
So... if you want to talk about bulk exploitation - go fucking yell at the current media companies, because holy fuck are they the worst fucking companies in the world to make this claim. They are leeches.
If you want me to step to your side: CURB THE FUCKING ABUSE.
Otherwise... you are the shitty cab company and the LLM is uber: Are they ethical? Eh - Nope. Are they unquestionable better for most people? Yes. Will I take a useful and unethical company over a stagnating and unethical company? Yes, yes I will. Would I prefer real governmental action to either of those? 100%.
If big art was a thing, your argument would be good, but Disney doesn't account for most of the input to these image algorithms.
But these people are already making essentially zero income from copyright (it's mostly tours/merch), and have been (again, and again, and again) utterly fucked by the current publishing companies that are so interested (financially) in killing this AI work.
They are already victims of the current system. I don't see how introducing AI changes their position all that much: They still have low bargaining power, low financial returns (avg is under 6k/year) and mostly aren't doing it as a career.
Are a few of them exceptions? Absolutely.
Will there keep being successful exceptions with AI: I'd bet yes (with a lot of cash).
Will the way they work change? Probably. Some will enjoy the change, and some won't.
I just don't see any compelling reason in your comment to argue to keep the current cluster-fuck of abuse that is modern copyright.
Arguing that the currently abused might continue to be abused might be a valid reason to reject both systems, but doesn't pass the bar to stopping AI works in my opinion.
To argue an alternative:
If anything - many indie artists might be much more successful if they're allowed to play/remix/sample/use works that are currently sitting unused behind the outrageous copyright duration we have right now.