[deleted]

Comments

• TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I think this argument made is what will ultimately cause a change.

  Or consider the time an Associated Press photographer, Mannie Garcia, snapped a photo of then-Sen. Barack Obama listening to George Clooney during a 2006 panel discussion. Two years later, artist Shepard Fairey used Garcia’s photo as the basis for an illustration called “Obama Hope” that was ubiquitous during the 2008 presidential campaign…

  … Fairey didn’t argue that the photograph wasn’t eligible for copyright at all—probably because that argument would have been laughed out of court. Everyone agrees that a photograph like Garcia’s is eligible for copyright—even though Garcia did not pose Obama in front of the camera, select or arrange Obama’s clothes, set up the background or lighting, or suggest what expressions Obama should make.

  Because if the AI was generated by human prompts, and selected by a human because of the output, it should be art. I have played with some ai and looked at what was rendered and thought, “not that”. That is the human equivalent of taking a photo and rejecting it because this other snap was more pleasing.

  source

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Exactly I use AI tools to help me edit my books. Is now my book no longer Is eligible for copyright? I wrote the story and use tools to clean them up.

    Copyright office is fuck up. Sooner or later the rules will need to change. Why hate conservatives and these BS. Soon or later we need to progress as a society and that includes how we define copyright.

    I think these artists need to stop telling the office it created with AI. Unless they are not allowing any digital art to be copyrighted then that is problematic After all CIG is computer generated art tell me how you can tell weather done by hand or AI when it comes to digital art?

    Won’t be long until the studios start using AI in their films is copyright office going turn down their copyright and if not then they’ll have accept others.

    source
• randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I tried to make the argument before about AI generation being like photography. If you randomly take pictures, should you get copyright for that photo even though you put not thought into the pictures arrangement? How much work should someone put into setting up prompts, controlnet poses and drawings, and inpainting fixes before they can apply for copyright over their AI work?

  And for people thinking it is just a big art stealing machine, everything in this world is either someone or owned by someone. No matter where you point your camera, you will end up with a picture derived from something owned by you or someone else. Cameras are literally machines that take things owned by someone else and turn it into art, exactly what people accuse AI of being.

  source
• Olap@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Extra! Extra!

  People who get a computer to copy other peoples art complain about being called out!

  source

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I agree with another commenter in this post, how is AI art different from a photograph in effort?

    source
• anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No. Intellectual Property is NOT property. IP should be abolished.

  source
• autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is the best summary I could come up with:

  ---

  The ruling raised an important question: Was the issue just that Thaler should have listed himself, rather than his AI system, as the image’s creator?

  Then on September 5, the office rejected the copyright for Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, holding that it “was not the product of human authorship” because it had been created by the AI software Midjourney.

  The nation’s highest court acknowledged that “ordinary” photographs may not merit copyright protection because they may be a “mere mechanical reproduction” of some scene.

  So even though a mechanical process captured the image, it nevertheless reflected creative choices by the photographer, and therefore deserved copyright protection.

  Or consider the time an Associated Press photographer, Mannie Garcia, snapped a photo of then-Sen. Barack Obama listening to George Clooney during a 2006 panel discussion.

  Two years later, artist Shepard Fairey used Garcia’s photo as the basis for an illustration called “Obama Hope” that was ubiquitous during the 2008 presidential campaign.

  ---

  The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  source
• anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I disagree. If some of your neighbours were being robbed and not others you would not be arguing for all in the neighborhood to be robbed - for consistency!

  source