I agree that AI work should not have copyright protection. Even with human intervention it still collects data, without expressed permission, from numerous sources.
This will actually protect smaller artists. It will prevent giant companies from profiting from their work without credit or payment.
Zarxrax@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m kind of mixed on this, because I think AI art is pretty cool, but I also hate our current copyright system. I kind of agree with the copyright office that images generated by a prompt should not be covered by copyright. What if I just type in “cat” and set the seed to 1, and try to copyright that? What if I copyright the image for EVERY seed with that prompt? Literally anyone else could easily generate the exact same image, and are they going to be in violation of my copyright now?
It gets really complicated though. What if I draw a sketch and then feed it into stable diffusion to flesh it out further? Then I do extensive inpainting across the whole thing, then I take it to Photoshop and do further edits. At this point, I think it’s fair to say this is an original image of my own creation, which should be eligible for copyright protection.
snooggums@kbin.social 1 year ago
Your second example is the artist doing a significant portion of the work and would be copyrightable.
Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
What if we go back to example 1 but this time they design the AI themselves?
sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I can understand partially your argument, and I’d agree the work you personally do is your own, but the art generated by the AI is not.
Is as much your art as the person who googles extensively to find images that they ten cut out and place into. As much your art as taking it to another person, asking them to make the edits, and revising.
Now, if the image you get from google is royalty free, and the revision artist along with you agree to signing off their rights, you’d be able to copywrite your work. I’d agree in the same situation with AI, if the people who’s art makes up the model agree to that circumstance, you should be able to copywrite. Otherwise you’re just taking credit for others work because you described it well enough while in training it into your own.
Zarxrax@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No specific person’s art is being put into my generated image, unlike if I were to copy an image from Google. If a model is trained on 1 trillion images, then every single one of those images influenced the weights in the model which then resulted in the output.
But my argument there is that when the generation becomes very integrated into the workflow as a tool, then it can be nearly impossible to separate out what was actually created by me vs what the ai did.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 year ago
It is already the case that if an AI generates an image that happens to be effectively identical to a copyrighted one the person who generated the image can be in violation of that copyright. It doesn't matter how the copyright originated.
In the case of your cat example, though, the solution is trivial. Use a random seed. There's far too many potential images any given model could generate to ever copyright all of them, or even a tiny sliver of them, and if that did miraculously happen just train the model a little more and you get a whole new set of outputs. It's unfeasible.