Comment on US rejects AI copyright for famous state fair-winning Midjourney art

NotAPenguin@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Because photographs don’t require other people photographs to work. It just requires the labour of the engineers at Nikon and you payed them by buying the camera.

  Use an AI algorithm with no training set and see how good your tool is.

  source

  • drekly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What if I used an open source algo with my own photographs as a dataset 🤔

    source

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Then absolutely go ahead. That isn’t what the guy in the post did tough.

      source
    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to keep copyright then. Everything involved would have been owned by you.

      That is a big difference to how other generative models work though, which do use other people’s work.

      source

      • drewdarko@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Because you would have to prove that the AI only learned from your work and it’s my understanding that there is no way to track what is used as learning material or even have an AI unlearn something.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Did you know that it is illegal to take a photograph of the Eiffel tower at night? France lacks the right of panorama, and the lighting system was designed by someone still living. So photographs do require violating copyright law sometimes.

    source

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      no no. You are not REQUIRED to break other peoples copyright in order to produce something with a camera. It is something you CAN do if you want to. AI literally cant function without a library of other peoples photos.

      Someone else brought this up in this thread and it is the only circumstance should be able to copyright an AI artwork. If you own the copyright to every single piece of art in the training data. If I take 10.000 photos that are mine and feed them into an AI that produces more photos that are entirely based on my work then it should be copyrightable.

      source

      • randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Everything in this world is owned by someone, either privately or by the government. (Well, astrophotography is an exception, but I did say ‘in this world’) You CANNOT take a photo without pointing it at something that is owned by someone. Is photography theft then?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social ⁨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.

  In this scenario, it is like asking why I can't claim copyright over the things I photograph

  This scenario is closer to me asking why I can't claim the copyright of the things I took a photograph of, rather than just the photo itself.

  source

  • NotAPenguin@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It's honestly pretty much the same with ai, there's lots of settings, tweaking, prompt writing and so on..

    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.

    source

    • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social ⁨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.

      source

      • stoneparchment@possumpat.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Actually… If an animal you own/trained makes art… you do get to have the copyright to the art.

        I also agree more with the other posters interpretation in general. We copyright art made by random chance emergent effects (Polluck et al.), process based art (Morris Louis et al.), performance art (so many examples… Adrian Piper comes to mind), ephemeral art, math art, and photography, as the poster says. None of those artists are fully in control of every aspect of the final project- the art makes itself, in part, in each example.

        If a human uses a math equation for the geometric output of a printer, and they tweak the variables to get the best looking output, we consider that art by law. Ai is exactly the same.

        It’s funny, I find that illustrators hate ai art, but “studio” artists (for lack of a better term) usually adore it

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works ⁨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?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• TORFdot0@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The scene isn’t copyrighted, anyone could go to the scene (theoretically) and take their own photo from a different angle. What’s copyrighted is the expression that went into staging the shot.

  An AI tool is the one doing the creative expression when generating its images is the argument. The prompt is where the creative expression of the user ends, and copyrighting just a phrase seems ridiculous. I tend to agree with these sort of arguments, especially when models like this are often trained on other people’s copyright work.

  source