Comment on U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 day agoIt’s not generally difficult at all for an artist to prove that they are the original creator of a certain piece. My photography for example is available for anyone for free and in high resolution but I’m the only one with the full resolution pictures and RAW files.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Seems impossible to me but I’m not an artist - I write code as a hobby and see no way to definitively prove I wrote any code that an AI could also produce. Is there any aspect of art creation that an AI cannot replicate?
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
You don’t have drafts or anything that can show the history of development? I write as a hobby and I have tons of drafts that show the development of my stories over time. If somebody tried to claim my works were AI, I could easily dispute that.
dan@upvote.au 1 day ago
What if the drafts were created using AI too?
Code is often in a source control system of some sort, which tracks changes to the code (who changed it and when it was changed). I don’t think that could prove that a human wrote it, though.
I think in cases like this, the author could prove they created the code/story/art/whatever by having a deep understanding of the material. That’s how Michael Jackson defended against lawsuits saying he copied someone else’s song - he described his songwriting process and could hum/beatbox every instrument in the track.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
How you gonna fake years worth of hand written notes and dated drafts?
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 day ago
I don’t know how to write code myself, but intuitively it seems a little different in this case.
When it comes to photography, I can show the original unedited RAW file with full resolution and full metadata and everyone else just has a lower-resolution JPG. The same thing applies to most digital art.