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
[–] 29 points 3 years ago (5 children)

This is good. I don't agree with copyrightable works by AI because I don't agree with copyright at all, at least not as it currently exists. Patents, too.

It has always felt like a contrived game to me, but that game has far too much impact on peoples lives.

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

    Copyright laws and parents IMO do have a purpose and in the current state of the world IMO something like them is needed. But their current implementations last vastly too long and give far too many protections to the owners of them.

    Personally I would rather see a world with a UBI and thus no need for artists and inventors to need to profit of their works (without others being able to just steal and profit for them selves). If we had a UBI then IMO we could likely do away with the copyright laws for the most part.

    But we don't have that and artists/inventors do need to make a living. So some protections to allow them to do this are currently required. But they have been flipped to give large corporations far too much control and need a big revamp in how they work to rebalance them.

    Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input. So is not as big a deal as these articles are making it out to be.

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

    Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.

    This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it's been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required

    They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn't permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it's entirely possible it will. So I'm not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.

    Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough "touch-ups" to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.

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

    I am not sure that "touch-ups" are considered creative enough alterations to be able to copyright the resultant work. Minor touch-ups do not seem to be at least.

    What is interesting is this copyright claim is far more damning for AI work than the case that all these articles going around are making. Though I don't know if this has been tested in court yet.

    it basically claims that since AI generated images are hard to predict there is not a strong enough chain between the prompt and the result that shows you have enough of an influence over the generated image. And that generating lots of images until one matches what you envisioned is also not good enough, like how searching the internet for an image that matches what you envisioned does not give you copyright over it.

    It also shows that minor alterations are not enough to claim copyright on the image.

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

    it basically claims that since AI generated images are hard to predict there is not a strong enough chain between the prompt and the result that shows you have enough of an influence over the generated image. And that generating lots of images until one matches what you envisioned is also not good enough, like how searching the internet for an image that matches what you envisioned does not give you copyright over it.

    Interesting, isn't this a direct consequence of knowing the general procedure a generative AI follows but not the individual steps it takes or works it leverages? If there was proper sourcing at every step you could actually have control and finesse on the output. But because the specific actions aren't documented, you're unable to move the algorithm in a specific enough direction to claim ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    If we had a UBI then IMO we could likely do away with the copyright laws for the most part.

    Most UBI proposals would not really help with that. Most UBI, when combined with other social programs, means a general "safety net" for people to barely subsist, rather than thrive if they are trying to build a living out of it. It's mostly envisioned as an emergency living, maybe bridge someone to get education, or to complement minimum wage type of work to bring it up to a respectable standard of living.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent