Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because the human element is in everything they had to do to set up the photograph, from physically going to the location, to setting up the camera properly, to ensuring the right lighting, etc.

    In an AI generated image, the only human element is in putting in a prompt(s) and selecting which picture you want. The AI made the art, not you, so only the enhancements on it are copywritable because those are the human element you added.

    This scenario is closer to me asking why can’t I claim copyright over the objects in my photograph, be

    This scenario is closer to me asking why I can’t claim the copyright of the things I took a photograph of, and only the photograph itself. The answer usually being because I didn’t make those things, somebody/something else did, I only made the photo.

    Edit: Posted this without realising I hadn’t finished my last paragraph. Oops

    • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s honestly pretty much the same with ai, there’s lots of settings, tweaking, prompt writing, masking and so on… that you need to set up in order to get the result you desire.

      A photographer can take shitty pictures and you can make shitty stuff with AI but you can also use both tools to make what you want and put lots of work into it.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is it’s not you making the art.

        The photographer is the one making the photo, it is their skill in doing ehat I described above that directly makes the photo. Whereas your prompts, tweaking, etc. are instructions for an AI to make the scenery for you based on other people’s artwork.

        I actually have a better analogy for you…

        If I trained a monkey to take photos, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting photo are, I don’t own those photos, the monkey does. Though in actuality, the work goes to the public domain in lieu as non-human animals cannot claim copyright.

        If you edit that monkey’s photo, you own the edit, but you still don’t own the photo because the monkey took it.

        The same should, does currently seem to, apply to AI. It is especially true when that AI is trained on information you don’t hold copyright or licensing for.

        • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually, that’s a really good analogy, and it helped me think about this in a different way.

          What if the monkey is the camera in this situation, and the training the monkey part is like designing the sensor on the camera. You can copyright the sensor design(AI Model), and the photo taken using the sensor (output), so the same should apply to AI art, shouldn’t it?

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re losing the analogy here because these things aren’t analogous. You can only copyright what comes out of the sensor because you took the photograph. Not everything that comes out of a camera sensor is copyrightable, such as photos taken by non-humans.

            There’s a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction. When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

            • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

              I understand what you mean, but you’re still directing the Camera; you’re placing it, adjusting the shot, perfecting lighting etc. Isn’t AI art the same? You have a direct hand in making what you want; through prompting, controlnet, Loras and whatever new thing comes along.

              • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The camera simply puts what you see through the viewfinder into a form that can be stored, you’re the one who decides everything about the shot.

                Whereas no matter how good your prompting is, it is ultimately the AI who interprets your parameters, who creates the images for you. It is the one doing the artistic work.

                Do you not notice the difference? As I said in my last reply, your camera is a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do. An AI acts independently of you based on your instruction. It is not the same thing.

                Also, I absolutely agree with @Eccitaze