this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
92 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37719 readers
103 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
92
Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by greenskye@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That doesn’t work with AI for a variety of technical and practical reasons.

As a rule, the law doesn't care about technicalities or practicalities.

Two people could, completely coincidentally, generate something that is so similar that it looks the same at a glance… even with dramatically different prompts on dramatically different models.

Sure. If two humans take a photo of the same sunset standing next to each other, they will be virtually identical and they will both own full copyright protection for the photo they took.

That protection does make the other person's photo an illegal copy - because it wasn't a copy.

No, the output of an AI is fundamentally “coincidental” and should not be subject to copyright. Human intent and authorship MUST be a significant factor. An artist can still use AI in their workflow, but their direct involvement and manipulation must be meaningfully “transformative” for copyright to apply in a fair and equitable way.

Of course. By the way that applies to human created works too. Copyright doesn't apply to everything created by a human, only certain things are protected. If someone asks you what 2 plus 2 is, and you reply "4"... you don't own the copyright on that answer. It wasn't creative enough to be protected under copyright. If you reply with a funny joke, then that's protected.