Ragnell comments on Everything Made By an AI Is In the Public Domain

Technology

88,783 readers

14,498 active

3,087 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

That's thing, though. That's the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren't doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.

If you use an AI as just another tool, that's one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 years ago

TLDR write a creative poem as an input

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] nous@programming.dev 0 points 3 years ago

This article was talking about the Thaler v. Perlmutter case - which Thaler confirmed

that the work “was autonomously generated by an AI” and “lack[ed] traditional human authorship,” but contesting the Copyright Office’s human authorship requirement and urging that AI should be “acknowledge[d] … as an author where it otherwise meets authorship criteria, with any copyright ownership vesting in the AI’s owner.”

So he was never trying to claim that he created the work or had any involvement in its creation at all. Only that he as the owner should get copyright over the work. As far as i can tell his AI generated the images without any prompt at all. So this case does nothing to further the argument over how much a prompt can be considered creative works. So none of the articles based on this case are doing any justice to what this case represents.

Though I have just been made aware of this copyright claim that does a far more damning case for prompts not being considered creative enough to be able to claim copyright. Though I don't know if this has been tested in court yet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent