Technology

59232 readers

4219 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

489

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge::United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, putting to rest a lawsuit against the US Copyright Office over its refusal to copyright an AI-generated image.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Howell wrote that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,”

Plaintiff develops and owns computer programs he describes as having “artificial intelligence” (“AI”) capable of generating original pieces of visual art, akin to the output of a human artist.

If he developed the program, that sure sounds like a "guiding human hand" to me. I think his real mistake was trying to claim it as a work for hire with the AI as the author, rather than it just being a tool.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright protects creative expression. Inventions are covered by patents. The guiding human hand would need to file with the patent office rather than the copyright office to protect their art algorithm.

When the copyright office sees the output of the art algorithm, they see an image that is not copyrightable due to a lack of human expression, a prompt that is uncopyrightable due to it being a factual list of things the image should contain, and an AI that is not even governed by their laws.

The ruling is unsurprising.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the protection of the software and the images it creates are separate, but that's missing the point. What protections the software does or doesn't have are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the images are covered. By developing the software, he determines how it functions, which influences the final product that it outputs. That would still be the case even if the software weren't covered by IP of any kind at all.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that he wanted to go this route so he could have automatic copyright ownership of literally anything people using his AI generator prompted from it. There's already ways that artists can take AI output and pretty easily make it something that can get copyright protection. It really seems like he was just angling to own by default anything that is generated using his AI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think that was his intent. And I am glad it got shot down as that would have created a very dangerous precedent. Could adobe claim copyright on your work for being the ones that wrote photoshop? Or kodak for creating the film you used or Canon for creating the camera?