To play devil’s advocate: What about artists that use assistants, is using AI not the same as using an assistant?
Comment on US rejects AI copyright for famous state fair-winning Midjourney art
Fisk400@feddit.nu 1 year agoYeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn’t steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn’t work when you want to copyright stuff.
Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.
That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don’t personally think that is analogous but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.
Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Skua@kbin.social 1 year ago
There's a reason I said "they should be made to be more ethical" and not just "they should be more ethical". I know that they aren't going to do it themselves and I'll support well-written regulations on them.
Isn't it what almost your entire comment was about?
Fisk400@feddit.nu 1 year ago
The argument was basically “that is how humans learn too”. I accepted that analogy because it doesn’t change my conclusion that AI can’t be copyrighted. Had the discussion been about something else I wouldn’t have accepted that argument.