642
Everything Made By an AI Is In the Public Domain (doctorow.medium.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 3 years ago* (9 children)

You can't counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know. He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago

    You can't counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know.

    Sure you can. You can also win any argument by replying "no you". You just don't leave a very good impression if you do that.

    He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

    This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

    It's probably just going to fall under existing law and the owner of the AI replaces the owner of the copy that was made (so same laws, no exception). Not sure what law that is exactly, but I assume it involves royalties and the like and there's an exception for certain things, like news and maybe art.

    Here's an article on it from the perspective of painting. I don't see why it would any different if it's an AI "painter". It's still technically painting what it does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 3 years ago* (7 children)

    There's a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning your AI generated likeness, it will now be up to the courts as to which rights supercede the others and until then the law will be abused.

    You effectively no longer have any guaranteed control of the distribution of your AI likeness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    "there's a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning a drawing of your likeness..."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    We're talking specifically about AI generated content because that's what the court case in the article ruled on, stay on topic. You just proved you don't understand the nuance I'm talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

    Translation: "I don't have a rebuttal for your argument so I'm going to pretend it's off topic."

    If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. "You clearly don't understand" just screams that you don't have any foundational arguments for your claims.

    You want to us to stay on topic?

    Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

    A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald's and Disney and they will lose easily.

    "The courts have declared I don't own the copyright for this" is not a defense for using protected images.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Yes, are you just catching up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Just catching up to the where I was in the first place? The argument you were so insistent was wrong and proved I "Didn't understand"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    See, that's what happens when you leave for 4 hours, conversations move on, people learn things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Hey, good on you for learning things and admitting you were wrong.

    Next time avoid statements like "stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about" and you won't look like such an ass when you actually read the article and realize you were wrong in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent