AI art is basically the same as 3D art. You can use premade models by other people and edit it to be however you want. You can look at Getting Over It and Only Up, both games made with asset store stuff but very different quality.
That being said, copyright is garbage anyways. People went thousands of years with their folk stories being told and retold, imagine how many would have been cut short because somebody "owned" that story.
100% agree. trash copyright laws. all of them. keep patent laws: 7 years max and not transferable from original individual(s). if the company wants to keep the idea they can pay the person(s) that created them.
copyright was supposed to fund new works of art by funding the original creator. that was a jewish lie. what these laws have done is enrich middlemen, speculators, and lawyers.
Yeah a small period like that is fine. Most of the money is made during that period anyways. Being able to buy the copyright for something with none of the original creators involved is very nonsensical.
The Constitution says "...securing for limited times to authors..." The original copyright law in the U.S. was for 7 years and allowed a one time extension for another 7 years. I think that's reasonable. The current law is ridiculous though, life of the author plus 70 years. There's no way that life+70 is a "limited time".
I tend to agree considering the current broken state of law, though I think the "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" is the real crux of the problem here, so take that out of the equation and I'm actually fine with a perpetual copyright for the life of the author - as long as he's still selling the original work. Revised editions don't count, and no transferring to other parties. (but feel free to license exclusive rights to a big company while you're alive)
I agree with this. The people using IP to the insane levels they are now make art creation difficult. Art means trading ideas back and forth to create a new form, not greedily hiding it away and barely using it.
On the other hand, if we got rid of the copyright laws and all that, there would be a shit porn version of Mario Bros on PS5 tomorrow. Companies want to destroy IP laws so they can squander good stories and ideas.
It doesn't matter what you do, there will always be an asshole.
It should only take a modicum of human input to make at least the final product copyrightable. I suppose it would be a derivative work of the AI, but we just said the AI portion doesn't get copyright.
So if I, as a media company, tell some people "hey, I want you to make this story with these characters in this setting" and I pay them to do it, I own the result essentially in perpetuity since they extend copyright length every time Steamboat Willy's is about to expire.
If I, as an individual, tell an AI that I control to "make this story with these characters in this setting", I don't own jack shit.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's about people ("Authors") and work ("their Writings") and money ("useful").
In the case of AI there's no author, no work, and no money.
The media company doesn't get a copyright because they said "this story, these characters, this setting" they buy the copyright from the person that actually creates the work.
When you tell an AI to do it you're getting the result for free, so why do you believe it's valuable? You're asking society to give you protection over this thing you got for nothing so you can charge other people for it. And that makes sense to you.
What you said makes sense taking the OP's example at face value if there was no human input beyond the initial prompt. However if there is any transformative creative process added to it by a human, then the work as a whole should be copyrightable by him or her. I just hope this ruling is not overreaching.
This is just the labor theory of value applied to AI-generated output.
AI is just a tool that gets you from point A to point B faster, no different than any other tool. If you create something using AI that is worthwhile to other people, why should you not get the same copyright protections that anybody else gets for their work? How many hours are you supposed to spend creating it before copyright protections kick in?
If I go through an iterative process where I tweak my AI's output 1000 times and spend 100 hours to get it exactly the way I had it envisioned, does that count? What if the AI gets it right after 500 iterations? 50 iterations? 1 iteration?
If I spend 20 minutes throwing paint at a canvas, is that output copyrightable? Why would that be any different than spending 20 minutes querying an AI?
Is a poem that I spend 20 minutes writing copyrightable? If I want to put it in a book and sell it and prevent other people from also copying it and putting it in their own book, are you going to tell me I can't because I didn't work hard enough on it?
Should animators not get paid because they're able to use computers to do the work in a tiny fraction of the time that it used to take?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The "author" is the user of the tool. The "writing" would be the output of the tool. The money would be what people were willing to pay for the output of the tool.
The media company doesn't get a copyright because they said "this story, these characters, this setting" they buy the copyright from the person that actually creates the work.
This is not only irrelevant, but it's factually incorrect. If Disney pays a crew of 1 or more people to make a new movie, they aren't "buying" the copyright from the crew. Disney owns the copyright, period. Yes, if some individual produced something that Disney was later interested in, they could purchase the copyright from that individual, but that's clearly not what I was referring to.
If you create something using AI that is worthwhile to other people, why should you not get the same copyright protections that anybody else gets for their work?
Because they're creating something and you're selecting something.
When you use something like stable diffusion, those images you created are already in there; anybody with the same seed and prompt gets the same image. So it's really akin to a giant book of clipart and you're flipping through it or using the index to find the section on "your prompt"; you don't get copyright over clipart because you flipped to the right page and selected a particular one. The large AI models are just "zip files" that compress all the outputs into a small (relatively) file size.
So if the output is copyrightable it's the maker of the AI who created the outputs. AIs recreating copyrighted works shows that they "contain" copyrighted works, and all their outputs are math so functionally exist when the AI is made.
You might want to think about that before insisting the works of AI are copyrightable, because instead of getting a work for free you're going to end up paying somebody else for it - Google, or Open AI, or Baidu most likely.
I would be amazed if there's a single judge anywhere in the US who understands how latent space diffusion works right now. Somebody on the level of Clarence Thomas or higher would be able to learn how but that's a really high bar, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
However, the way around this is amazingly easy. I use AI to create some art, and just simply claim it as my own. Long as it's done in-house, nobody will be the wiser.
Or use it and trace over it, give it your own spin that way. Or use it for BG only etc. I have used it to enhance unfinished art by me. It was fine with my lines and just shaded it(the part I hate the most about art personally).
I mean, I get why. Your laser printer does not "own" copyright on the Picasso you just had it print.
Now, if Hollywood were to show that the use of the AI tool is subject to copyright - the techniques for modifying the prompt to deliver an appropriate response, or, if they get clever, conscious curation of the AI's base data set or something - they might have more room for argument here, no?
AI art is basically the same as 3D art. You can use premade models by other people and edit it to be however you want. You can look at Getting Over It and Only Up, both games made with asset store stuff but very different quality.
That being said, copyright is garbage anyways. People went thousands of years with their folk stories being told and retold, imagine how many would have been cut short because somebody "owned" that story.
100% agree. trash copyright laws. all of them. keep patent laws: 7 years max and not transferable from original individual(s). if the company wants to keep the idea they can pay the person(s) that created them.
copyright was supposed to fund new works of art by funding the original creator. that was a jewish lie. what these laws have done is enrich middlemen, speculators, and lawyers.
Yeah a small period like that is fine. Most of the money is made during that period anyways. Being able to buy the copyright for something with none of the original creators involved is very nonsensical.
The Constitution says "...securing for limited times to authors..." The original copyright law in the U.S. was for 7 years and allowed a one time extension for another 7 years. I think that's reasonable. The current law is ridiculous though, life of the author plus 70 years. There's no way that life+70 is a "limited time".
I tend to agree considering the current broken state of law, though I think the "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" is the real crux of the problem here, so take that out of the equation and I'm actually fine with a perpetual copyright for the life of the author - as long as he's still selling the original work. Revised editions don't count, and no transferring to other parties. (but feel free to license exclusive rights to a big company while you're alive)
There's no such thing as taking reality out of the equation.
That's why you draft laws while taking into consideration how it could be abused.
Murphy's Law and all that.
Just make it a set number of years.
Making it for the life of the author means that amoral "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" would just kill you if it's cheaper than licensing.
I agree with this. The people using IP to the insane levels they are now make art creation difficult. Art means trading ideas back and forth to create a new form, not greedily hiding it away and barely using it.
On the other hand, if we got rid of the copyright laws and all that, there would be a shit porn version of Mario Bros on PS5 tomorrow. Companies want to destroy IP laws so they can squander good stories and ideas.
It doesn't matter what you do, there will always be an asshole.
It should only take a modicum of human input to make at least the final product copyrightable. I suppose it would be a derivative work of the AI, but we just said the AI portion doesn't get copyright.
This is good... but I doubt it'll last once the money starts getting involved.
its still new so no ones crafted a law to fuck it up yet.
Wonder what it means for AI generated designs in electronics, engineering etc?
So if I, as a media company, tell some people "hey, I want you to make this story with these characters in this setting" and I pay them to do it, I own the result essentially in perpetuity since they extend copyright length every time Steamboat Willy's is about to expire.
If I, as an individual, tell an AI that I control to "make this story with these characters in this setting", I don't own jack shit.
Makes sense.
It does make sense. You are not allowed to own things or have power, only your betters and their fake-people (golem?) corporations are allowed that.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's about people ("Authors") and work ("their Writings") and money ("useful").
In the case of AI there's no author, no work, and no money.
The media company doesn't get a copyright because they said "this story, these characters, this setting" they buy the copyright from the person that actually creates the work.
When you tell an AI to do it you're getting the result for free, so why do you believe it's valuable? You're asking society to give you protection over this thing you got for nothing so you can charge other people for it. And that makes sense to you.
What you said makes sense taking the OP's example at face value if there was no human input beyond the initial prompt. However if there is any transformative creative process added to it by a human, then the work as a whole should be copyrightable by him or her. I just hope this ruling is not overreaching.
This is just the labor theory of value applied to AI-generated output.
AI is just a tool that gets you from point A to point B faster, no different than any other tool. If you create something using AI that is worthwhile to other people, why should you not get the same copyright protections that anybody else gets for their work? How many hours are you supposed to spend creating it before copyright protections kick in?
If I go through an iterative process where I tweak my AI's output 1000 times and spend 100 hours to get it exactly the way I had it envisioned, does that count? What if the AI gets it right after 500 iterations? 50 iterations? 1 iteration?
If I spend 20 minutes throwing paint at a canvas, is that output copyrightable? Why would that be any different than spending 20 minutes querying an AI?
Is a poem that I spend 20 minutes writing copyrightable? If I want to put it in a book and sell it and prevent other people from also copying it and putting it in their own book, are you going to tell me I can't because I didn't work hard enough on it?
Should animators not get paid because they're able to use computers to do the work in a tiny fraction of the time that it used to take?
The "author" is the user of the tool. The "writing" would be the output of the tool. The money would be what people were willing to pay for the output of the tool.
This is not only irrelevant, but it's factually incorrect. If Disney pays a crew of 1 or more people to make a new movie, they aren't "buying" the copyright from the crew. Disney owns the copyright, period. Yes, if some individual produced something that Disney was later interested in, they could purchase the copyright from that individual, but that's clearly not what I was referring to.
Because they're creating something and you're selecting something.
When you use something like stable diffusion, those images you created are already in there; anybody with the same seed and prompt gets the same image. So it's really akin to a giant book of clipart and you're flipping through it or using the index to find the section on "your prompt"; you don't get copyright over clipart because you flipped to the right page and selected a particular one. The large AI models are just "zip files" that compress all the outputs into a small (relatively) file size.
So if the output is copyrightable it's the maker of the AI who created the outputs. AIs recreating copyrighted works shows that they "contain" copyrighted works, and all their outputs are math so functionally exist when the AI is made.
You might want to think about that before insisting the works of AI are copyrightable, because instead of getting a work for free you're going to end up paying somebody else for it - Google, or Open AI, or Baidu most likely.
And when someone draws something, they've also seen all of the images they're aping.
You completely ignored the whole rest of my argument, so I'll ignore the rest of yours.
This is what being wrong looks like. Run away.
Don't act like a faggot redditor.
Don't act like a faggot redditor.
Maybe if we elect Ron DeSantis he will stick it to the Fashy Mouse again.
What if the AI is using a model primarily trained on your own prior work?
Why is an "AI-created" file not copyrightable but a copy-paste in Photoshop is?
I would be amazed if there's a single judge anywhere in the US who understands how latent space diffusion works right now. Somebody on the level of Clarence Thomas or higher would be able to learn how but that's a really high bar, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
At least there wasn't some regulation yet.
DeviantART is using its massive archives to train AI.
They should pay royalties to the creators of all that sonic the hedgehog smut if they intend to profit from it.
Can't wait for the inflation sonic AI, its gonna be big, lmoa.
I agree with the Judge.
However, the way around this is amazingly easy. I use AI to create some art, and just simply claim it as my own. Long as it's done in-house, nobody will be the wiser.
A metadata strip and a gentle noise filter should take care of that.
Or use it and trace over it, give it your own spin that way. Or use it for BG only etc. I have used it to enhance unfinished art by me. It was fine with my lines and just shaded it(the part I hate the most about art personally).
On the other hand, doesn't this then lead to "procedurally generated content" isn't copyrightable?
I mean, I get why. Your laser printer does not "own" copyright on the Picasso you just had it print.
Now, if Hollywood were to show that the use of the AI tool is subject to copyright - the techniques for modifying the prompt to deliver an appropriate response, or, if they get clever, conscious curation of the AI's base data set or something - they might have more room for argument here, no?