Technology

59415 readers

2905 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]

493

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] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you use software to position objects in a the frame

And if you simply describe the position via a prompt (among other things) then is that not also minimally creative?

What matters is the human’s input. You can create uncopyrightable works using any tool, and you can use any tool to create copyrightable works. What matters is how much human expression is involved.

Yes, that has basically been my argument - the human input has to be creative in some way and IMO and prompt can be. But not all prompts used will meet that bar. Where the line lies on what meets that bar is still up for debate and AFAIK no court has laid any groupd work for this yet. But a prompt alone can IMO contain enough creativity to allow the AI generated work to be copyrightable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright laws are written vaguely so they can be applied to all human expression even those that haven't been invented yet.

Obviously there are boarder cases where things are not clear cut. That's true for anything. But when courts make those decisions, they are going to do so using legal frameworks that already exist. The courts are not going to invent new standards to determine whether AI usage is copyrightable or not.

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

I never suggested they were going to make up new standards based on nothing. All my arguments are related things to existing situations.