this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
429 points (97.6% liked)

News

23014 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright. 

In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.

Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (4 children)

You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art. The artist doesn't copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting. If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

If I use a combination of words to commission an artist to paint a picture, I don't own the copyright on that picture.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

It has to be fixed in a tangible medium.

In this case they’re not “fixing” their words and the final art is the created expression. Yet in this case their created expression wasn’t created by them but the program.

In this case their combination is the palette and paint but the program “interpreted” and so fixed it.

For example you can’t copyright a simple and common saying. Nor something factual like a phone book. Likewise you can’t copyright recipes. There has to be a “creative” component by a human. And courts have ruled that AI generated content doesn’t meet that threshold.

That’s not to say that creating the right prompt isn’t an “art” (as in skill and technique) and there is a lot of work in getting them to work right. Likewise there’s a lot of work in compiling recipes, organizing them, etc. but even then only the “design” part of the arrangement of the facts, and excluding the factual content, can be copyrighted.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Using stuff like controlnet to manually influence how images are shaped by the ML engine might count, there's some great examples here (involving custom Qr codes)

https://medium.com/@ssmaameri/ai-generated-qr-codes-with-controlnet-huggingface-and-google-colab-a99ffeee2210

[–] tyler 3 points 2 months ago

In general these art pieces are not created simply with words. Users control the output using ControlNet which allows drawing on the image to force regeneration only to specific areas. It seems that if your only logic around it being non-copyrightable is due to them using words and that the program “does it all”, but that’s just not how it works.

I’m not in favor of copyrights for stuff like this, but you have a terrible misunderstanding of how these art pieces are created and it’s affecting your argument negatively.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You cannot copyright a recipe, but you can copyright the product it produces, as evidenced by the wealth of food and drinks that are protected by law from being copied.

Can a person who works with wood and creates something unique from the wood then copyright their design crafted from the wood? What makes it art and not just glue, iron nails, and dead trees? This is what needs to be defined with AI. Right now everyone is so happy to jump on the anti-AI bandwagon that they blind themselves to issues regarding the law by claiming the art is lawless at best and stolen at worst, when in fact it is simply a new tool and a new medium.

Did authors who used typewriters rail against the new word processor? What about the editor that checked for grammar and spelling? Did they try to burn down spell and grammar checks in microsoft word? Is the art any less art if it has been created with a tool that allows for more ease than has been available in the past? Should we boycott the bakers that do not mill their own wheat? Or does the sourdough bread belong to the wild yeast cultures, and so owed recompense for all we have taken from it?

The argument can be made until the universe burns out, or we can accept that art is made by sentient life, and any tool used in the production of it cannot be considered an owner of that art, and if the only sentient lifeform involved in the creation of that art wishes to claim it as their own, then they should have the right to protections for their work.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (25 children)

you can copyright the product it produces, as evidenced by the wealth of food and drinks that are protected by law from being copied.

No, you can neither copyright a recipe nor the food or drink it produces.

Food and drink is only protected by trademark law. You are free to make a burger that tastes exactly like a Big Mac, you simply can't call it a Big Mac.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I’m not Anti AI. I have fun making stuff with it.

But the copyright laws as they are don’t apply. And if they did it would open a can of worms legally.

The recipe can’t be copyrighted. The cake produced can’t be copyrighted. But the packaging or style of a cake with your brand could be trademarked which is a different legal ball of wax entirely

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art

so its literature, then?

The artist doesn’t copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting.

Sure, the artist doesn't copyright a palette, or the shop does not hold ownership of pigments. But Companies do patent pigments.

If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.

If you commission an Art piece, with a detailed description of what it should display. The artist comes back to you with a draft, you tell them to adjust here and there, and you finally after several rounds of drafting got the commissioned art piece. Did you draw it?

Thats what LLMs do and nothing else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Is the diction of the buyer to the artist in the final paragraph of your argument make the painting a novel? You have you answer.

Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments, but that doesn't give them ownership over the paintings created by them, only protect for their own IP vis-à-vis the pigments. In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work but hold no ownership on the art it produces.

Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn't a sentient lifeform. By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments

No, you cannot copyright a pigment. Companies can use colors as trademarks, but that just means that competitors can't use the color in a way that would confuse customers. For example, you can't start a courier service with vans that are the same color as UPS vans, because that might confuse customers.

You are still free to use that color in ways that are unrelated to UPS, for instance as an eye shadow.

Patents are another matter entirely. You don't patent the color, but you might be able to patent the media (e.g. a new formula for quick drying paint).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (11 children)

In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work

What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?

Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn't a sentient lifeform

It was an allegory. The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist. And since you can't copyright something you didn't made, well tough luck getting copyright on AI slop.

By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.

No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.

If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It’s a good analogy but one thing to consider is that the artist is the copyright holder.

The company that directed it only has the copyright either by explicit contract transferring rights or because it’s a work for hire where the employee’s copyright work is “automatically” transferred to their employer.

Some interesting case law on that from Disney artists, comic book authors, etc

https://copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.

Then the real artist, the AI, should request the copyright. And sue the charlatan that tried to take its work and claim all credit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And the camera owns the photograph, and Photoshop owns the digital image, and Final Cut Pro owns the film? The tool owns nothing. The tool is incapable of ownership

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thus the value of the art is reduced to an idea and the human labor invested. The labor is practically zero and an idea is worth nothing. That means there is nothing worthwhile to copyright

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago
[–] RandomVideos 1 points 2 months ago

And how do you define a tool?