Hacker News Reader

Comment by fassssst | Hacker News Reader

Especially since many of the tools in Photoshop have been backed by machine learning for many years now.

It seems like such tools are more copyrightable because your decisions are having a larger impact.

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.

Given this it would seem running any simple algo such as balance colors or adjust lighting would disqualify the output for copyright. Only change here was the algo used.

No, that isn’t true. If you do substantial original work and employ AI that is different than if the entire work is the output of AI. Nobody is saying using AI for any one part taints what is otherwise a substantially original work.

The substantial original work here is the prompt authorship. That’s the “paintbrush” in this work. And the “paint” is the AI.

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.

Sure. But where should that exist on the spectrum of copyrightability vs painting with a physical brush? I don’t think we can just handwave AI generated art away but isnt your contribution a lot less than painting?

Does that mean an art gallery curators spending hours, days even over a thousand pictures that people took randomly finally finding the perfect one for a project he has should have the copyright to that picture? Considering it's not a professional, just a tourist that took it.

Yah. But by fact image processing results in entirely different image, even if you can’t see the changes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com