• ImADifferentBird
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    So what you’re saying is that the AI is the artist, not the prompter. The AI is performing the labor of creating the work, at the request of the prompter, like the hypothetical art student you mentioned did, and the prompter is not the creator any more than I would be if I kindly asked an art student to paint me a picture.

    In which case, the AI is the thing that gets the authorial credit, not the prompter. And since AI is not a person, anything it authors cannot be subjected to copyright, just like when that monkey took a selfie.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It should be as copyrightable as the prompt. If the prompt is something super generic, then there’s no real work done by the human. If the prompt is as long and unique as other copyrightable writing (which includes short works like poems) then why shouldn’t it be copyrightable?

      • ImADifferentBird
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Because it wasn’t created by a human being.

        If I ask an artist to create a work, the artist owns authorship of that work, no matter how long I spent discussing the particulars of the work with them. Hours? Days? Months? Doesn’t matter. They may choose to share or reassign some or all of the rights that go with that, but initial authorship resides with them. Why should that change if that discussion is happening not with an artist, but with an AI?

        The only change is that, not being a human being, an AI cannot hold copyright. Which means a work created by an AI is not copyrightable. The prompter owns the prompt, not the final result.

        • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          56 minutes ago

          You’re assigning agency to the program, which seems wrong to me. I think of AI like an advanced Photoshop filter, not like a rudimentary person. It’s an artistic tool that artists can use to create art. It does not in and of itself create art any more than Photoshop creates graphics or a synthesizer creates music.

        • desktop_user
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          should a camera also own the copyright to the pictures it takes? (I seriously hate photographers)

          • ImADifferentBird
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Ah, but there is a fundamental difference there. A photographer takes a picture, they do not tell the camera to take a picture for them.

            It is the difference between speech and action.