you know what HELL YEAH

I would support the fuck out of that

I'm too used to being surrounded by people who constantly push back on it.

As a creator of some digital content in the past (keep wanting to get back into it but, you know, life gets in the way) I was plagiarized and I felt flattered when it happened.

When people get pissy about it, well, that's a skill issue and they need to GIT GUD.

Ideally, some sort of universal asset tracking and attribution system would be nice so that the distribution of compensation could be automated. People who invent something oughtta be due SOME credit, but not full control.

I want everyone to have the inaliable RIGHT to create derivative content as long as if they generate any income from it a tiny portion of it gets sent 'up the line' toward whatever it was derived from.

I want people to be able to make original animations with "Disney characters" and get to keep at least 85% of what anyone is willing to pay them without Disney being allowed to take, or CAPABLE OF taking, even one goddamn penny more than that.

I want people to be able to create custom content for Warhammer 40K and Games Workshop to be utterly POWERLESS to stop them.

I want networks to never be allowed to nuke content libraries ever again.

I want media that's literally rotting away, disintegrating into nothing as the celluloid it's printed on oxidizes and crumbles into literal dust, to never be lost again.

It’s going to raise some interesting issues when a studio decides to commision an AI programmer / artist to feed AI some exacting prompts to closely reproduce someobe else’s copyrighted work.

What is the difference if they hire someone to use photoshop to reproduce someone else's copyrighted work? Why would a case involving an AI be any different? Just because you create something and release it to the public domain does not mean you have the right to actually do that if what you created violates copyright.

It will also raise questions if an editor goes over AI created material and makes changes. Does he get to copyright it?

Same question can be applied to any public domain works. AI generated or not.

But also the articles title is wrong, AI generated works are not uncopyrightable - only ones that don't involve any human input (much like any other work that does not involve any human input).

Personally, I think no IP law is better than the system of IP laws we have (about which judges routinely make bad rulings out of ignorance). So I’ll be glad to see it broken. I creative commons my own stuff anyway.

I agree with this though. But this case does not break the system at all. It just re-enforces precedents that have already been established for non ai works - in that a human needs to be part of the creative process for the work to be copyrightable. Articles reporting on this case are just going for the most clickbait title they can.

The skill of a photographer is in the curation of the work.

They are credited with the framing, the positioning, the timing, the settings they used on configuring the camera.

If someone else went to the same location, attempted to frame it, position it, time it, and configure the camera themselves, even if the resultant picture somehow managed to come out identically to the first one - hell, even if they used the same actual physical camera - the photographer who took the first picture has no rights or claims over this new albeit hypothetically identical photograph.

Third example:
If a photographer set up a permanent camera at a location that already had the scene framed, all elements within the frame positioned, all settings calibrated and locked-in, and somehow even managed to make sure that the timing was always perfect every time someone came up and pressed the shutter button, ALL the work was still done by the photographer.

Fourth example:
If an AI algorithmically calculated all of these aspects and robotically configured a camera's settings, then used a drone to deliver and orient the camera precisely to achieve the framing and scene composition as determined by the algorithm, then were to schedule the exact optimal moment to trigger the shutters each time a human pressed a button, that human would have no claims or rights over the resultant picture and it ought fall directly into public domain.

Credit? Sure, whatevs! Copyright, royalties or ownership? Absolutely not.

Hard disagree, there is a near certainty that any work produced from a current generative "ai" model includes material scraped from the web in violation of the release license.

Whatever skill they apply, it's still by default an unlicensed derivative work.