Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

currentscurrents t1_j9l627o wrote

>Literally no one was suggesting the author didn't have a valid copyright on the text or the composition.

The copyright office initially indicated that it was considering revoked the copyright registration on the entire work.

>AI-assisted works were never in play here. These images were AI-created.

They're still AI-assisted, since the human directed the AI through the prompt process.

It's much like pointing a camera. You don't even need specific artistic intent to get copyright on camera images, your random snaps half-covered with your thumb are copyrighted too. As their lawyer points out, only a modicum of creativity is required for copyright.

Ultimately, the copyright office isn't the final authority on copyright; the courts are. One way or another, we will see a bunch of new case law being written in the next few years.


sam__izdat t1_j9ni8rd wrote

> They're still AI-assisted

the USCO has (correctly) repeatedly rejected copyright for the raw output of image generators, where you asked the computer to paint you a pretty picture

the parallels with photography are tenuous at best, and it's not about effort but rather the total absence of creative involvement -- it's less photography and more "I found this on google image search" except your database is the model's latent space

it is a good thing that they elected to forego a radical expansion of the already nightmarish, bloated IP regime, where being first-to-access would have granted users (not artists) a blackstonian property right to the results of a text query

i don't need whoever's hoarding the most compute to mine the commons and automatically pump out self-generating, legally-enforceable NFTs, at an industrial scale, in perpetuity... the world has enough parasites as it is, without a new clan of digital landlords, thank you