Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kromgar t1_jaa5r8l wrote

This isn't crippling. All it says is images you curate from the ai without very much user input into the creation can't be copyrighted.

There are now controlnets where you can create your own poses or take your own drawings and run them through the ai to supercharge the guiding process for the ai. Even then you can always do editing post generation to make it personal. Hell you can even train the ai on your own art and style. Just because one guy used midjourney doesn't mean that someone doing something with a more open and configurable ai can't get their works copyright. It's on a case by case basis.


lethal_moustache t1_jaaobu2 wrote

Possibly. However the presumption will be that AI 'assisted' art is not entitled to copyright either. I expect the presumption to be rebuttable to some extent, but the author is going to have a difficult time trying to delineate what is and is not original to the author and not something that was added by the AI. In other words, copyright will be dragged into the morass of litigation over validity that patents go through.


TheeHeadAche t1_jab7i89 wrote

So this case does address this in some fashion and the office ruled that significant edits can be proof of authorship. Mrs. K does provide examples of ai-generated work that is edited and they do review it.


gurenkagurenda t1_jabfdwy wrote

> However the presumption will be that AI 'assisted' art is not entitled to copyright either.

I would draw the exact opposite conclusion from the USCO correspondence. Note this:

> We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. That authorship is protected by copyright.

They’ve specifically said that everything about but the generated images themselves is copyrighted. Assuming that this decision holds up to further scrutiny (which, who knows), an assistive tool is one that combines non-copyrightable generated content with copyrightable human generated elements. With those kinds of tools, the fact that individual elements of the final work are not copyrightable would generally be academic.

Edit: phonetic typo


lethal_moustache t1_jadk99k wrote

I expect that the CO will leave all issues regarding the boundaries of what is copyrighted and what is not to the litigants in much the same way that patent 'quality' issues are left to litigants. So really, not much is changing other than the strengthening of the idea that non-persons cannot be the author of copyrightable works.

Generations of law students will write on to their law reviews by rehashing this issue. Yecch.