Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look, if I train a monkey to draw art, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting art is, I don’t own that art, the monkey does.

    As non-human animals cannot copyright their works, it then thusly defaults to the public domain.

    The same applies to AI. You train it to make the art you want, but you’re not the one making the art, the AI is. There’s no human element in the creation itself, just like with the monkey.

    You can edit or make changes as you like to the art, and you own those, but you don’t own the art because the monkey/AI drew it.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, because there’s a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction.

        When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

        It’s as silly as asking if your paintbrush owns your art as a response to being told that you can’t claim copyright over art you don’t own.

        • uint8_t@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          you control the seed, control the prompt — you can get the “AI” to produce the very same image if you want. so yes, you do have

          a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s like saying you can control the sun for a photo because you can predict where it will be at a given time.

            The fact that an AI can be deterministic, in that the same “seeds” will generate the same images, doesn’t at all invalidate my point that it is still the one interpreting the “seeds” and doing the actual image generation.