How convenient considering regressive leftists and globalist conspirators are not real people but mere rabid animals that are genetically considered human.
an AI-generated comic lost its copyright protection because the USPTO determined that "copyrightable works require human authorship."
From the comic's website:
For the first time the millions of writers who have seen worlds and characters in their minds can now bring them to life on the page. The promise of a new, real-time creative tool for story development and creation is here.
So there is human authorship here. And not only in the sense that someone "used a tool to generate an image"; they created a story, generated images to fit that story, and assembled the images into a comic. This isn't an "AI-generated comic," this is a comic featuring AI art.
It's an illustration of the ridiculousness of copyright.
I create a picture in sand, for example. This is now subject to copyright and no one is allowed to make copies without my permission. What happens if the exact same picture is created by wind (or AI, as the case may be)? Can I sue the wind? Are people allowed to make copies as long as they're copying an AI image?
Copyright began as a means to protect writers from big publishing houses, now it's a tool used by big publishing houses to crush creators and stifle innovation that would threaten their status quo (see Disney, Nintendo, etc).
These people are so fucking stupid they'll just do and think exactly what is expected of a Current Year Good Person.
This "AI art" panic is yet another corporate/governmental psyop, in my opinion.
My rule: A "war on anything" (drugs, terror, misinformation, guns, AI art, etc.) is a war on you. It's always used against you, it's always turned inward, it's always used to curtail rights and take away freedom.
idk how the govet can revoke copyright protection when there is a creative basis for copyright in all of the following:
the text of the comic
the arrangement of the comic
the choice of words and refinements in "prompting" to achieve the desired result from the engine
it isn't analogous to google search results, either, since the proper analogy would be if google pulled information from all over the internet then MADE A NEW UNIQUE PAGE with no recognizable parts from any of the billions of pages drawn from. google search results would be like if you prompted an algo and it just showed you a google images result of other people's art.
Not that I care but wasn't always a thing that if you change something enough you could use it. Like all those Chinese toys doing fake super-man and fake spider-man?
This is the comic. The backgrounds look good, but the faces are weak. Still a good job using the prompts to get the same character, but I suspect he simply used Zendaya as a reference point.
What are you even talking about? This person said that, if you Google something, you don't own the results. They didn't say that the use of Google equates to theft. Fuck you for your clickbait-journalism tier post, and for making me have to defend what I can only assume is a furry.
That's idiotic. Google is essentially a giant phone book for the internet. Do I own the page of plumbers I look up? No, but the publisher of the phone book does. Likewise, Google owns the search result page.
Aren't derivative works covered by their own copyright? AI might make the art but any amount of touch up, histogram adjustment, text bubbles, or general graphical layout in any amount of effort is certainly entitled to copyright.
That said, USPTO is not part of the judiciary, and USPTO's blessing is not required to have a defendable copyright.
If a monkey who presses a button on a camera can't own the image he created, then why the fuck should AI anything be copyrightable? Robots aren't "people". Frankly, the monkey has more of a claim simply for being alive and having a real mind.
If works require human authorship then corporations should lose all their original IPs.
Definitely.
I won't accept the argument that Corporations are people until Texas executes one.
Why do legal fictions own property at all?
In order to enable the proletarianized elites of the managerial class to seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie.
Tent, you are always raising your hand and giving the correct answer. Let someone else guess for a change!
Although, I will say, your answer isn't entirely complete. It also steals the means of production from the actual proletariat and the peasantry.
How convenient considering regressive leftists and globalist conspirators are not real people but mere rabid animals that are genetically considered human.
From the comic's website:
So there is human authorship here. And not only in the sense that someone "used a tool to generate an image"; they created a story, generated images to fit that story, and assembled the images into a comic. This isn't an "AI-generated comic," this is a comic featuring AI art.
I generally want to loosen copyright authority, so this is fine with me. These people really get off on a stupid tangent though.
It's an illustration of the ridiculousness of copyright.
I create a picture in sand, for example. This is now subject to copyright and no one is allowed to make copies without my permission. What happens if the exact same picture is created by wind (or AI, as the case may be)? Can I sue the wind? Are people allowed to make copies as long as they're copying an AI image?
Copyright began as a means to protect writers from big publishing houses, now it's a tool used by big publishing houses to crush creators and stifle innovation that would threaten their status quo (see Disney, Nintendo, etc).
It's time for "IP" to go.
Then why create?
These people are so fucking stupid they'll just do and think exactly what is expected of a Current Year Good Person.
This "AI art" panic is yet another corporate/governmental psyop, in my opinion.
My rule: A "war on anything" (drugs, terror, misinformation, guns, AI art, etc.) is a war on you. It's always used against you, it's always turned inward, it's always used to curtail rights and take away freedom.
And retards always fall for it.
Didn't the monkey selfie copyright dispute (yes, it's a real thing) already settle this?
So if a pharmacutical uses an AI to create a cure for cancer.. they dont own the copyright for it?? Or in that case, the patent?
Don't worry dude, they're not trying to cure anything. Selling drugs to treat the symptoms makes way more money than a one and done cure.
Surely the text in book is still copyrighted lol
idk how the govet can revoke copyright protection when there is a creative basis for copyright in all of the following:
the text of the comic
the arrangement of the comic
the choice of words and refinements in "prompting" to achieve the desired result from the engine
it isn't analogous to google search results, either, since the proper analogy would be if google pulled information from all over the internet then MADE A NEW UNIQUE PAGE with no recognizable parts from any of the billions of pages drawn from. google search results would be like if you prompted an algo and it just showed you a google images result of other people's art.
Not that I care but wasn't always a thing that if you change something enough you could use it. Like all those Chinese toys doing fake super-man and fake spider-man?
This is the comic. The backgrounds look good, but the faces are weak. Still a good job using the prompts to get the same character, but I suspect he simply used Zendaya as a reference point.
Sigh
Can't say that I read any of the text. Just examined the artwork, rofl.
What are you even talking about? This person said that, if you Google something, you don't own the results. They didn't say that the use of Google equates to theft. Fuck you for your clickbait-journalism tier post, and for making me have to defend what I can only assume is a furry.
The creation of the program might involve theft, but the usage of the program isn't.
We should unironically abolish the concept of Intellectual Property Laws entirely.
That's idiotic. Google is essentially a giant phone book for the internet. Do I own the page of plumbers I look up? No, but the publisher of the phone book does. Likewise, Google owns the search result page.
Aren't derivative works covered by their own copyright? AI might make the art but any amount of touch up, histogram adjustment, text bubbles, or general graphical layout in any amount of effort is certainly entitled to copyright.
That said, USPTO is not part of the judiciary, and USPTO's blessing is not required to have a defendable copyright.
Leftists are so retarded
All this means is that people will lie about the origin of their artwork, which isn't an improvement.
If a monkey who presses a button on a camera can't own the image he created, then why the fuck should AI anything be copyrightable? Robots aren't "people". Frankly, the monkey has more of a claim simply for being alive and having a real mind.