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

News

23014 readers
6 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] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

At what point does the generative capabilities in Photoshop (which you can give prompts to) become not controlling the output?

At the point where a creative decision is made that the user did not control, that element is not eligible for copyright.

So to return to my example: suppose a photographer takes a photo of a model and asks an AI to add a dog to the image. Unless the dog comes from one of their other photos, they can't copyright it (although they can still copyright the model).

Now suppose another photographer takes a photo of Mt Everest. They ask the same AI to add a dog to the image, which results in the same (or very similar) dog. The first photographer can't sue the second one for copyright infringement, because the first one didn't create that dog and therefore has no rights over it.

At which point does control net (which literally allows you to pose models and replace every single thing about a scene along with numerous other features) become “controlling the output”.

That's like asking "How many alterations do I have to make to an image of the Mona Lisa to transform it into something I can copyright it as my own work?"

The answer is: it's up to the judge. See: Lynn Goldsmith vs Andy Warhol

See any sort of public art, or even the paintings you make by literally just pouring paint on a canvas or hanging a bucket of paint by a string and having it move across a canvas and drip.

An artist pouring paint on canvas or hanging a bucket of paint on a string can still plausibly tell a judge that they controlled the output. The behavior of such mechanical devices is fully predictable by the user. Or they might claim that they controlled some elements of the output but not others. Then they can copyright the elements they controlled.

Of course if they want to lose their copyright, then they are free to tell everyone that they didn't really have any control over the output. See: Monkey selfie.

public art

You can copyright a tangible thing that you personally created but you can't claim a copyright over the interaction of the public with what you created.

To the extent that members of the public contribute tangible creative elements to the work (for example inviting the public to decorate your work), those contributors will share the copyright with you over the final result.

[–] tyler 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your logic means that every single photo touched by the “content aware delete” in Photoshop is ineligible for copyright which is hilariously incorrect. Your logic would not hold up in court (and hasn’t!).

That's like asking "How many alterations do I have to make to an image of the Mona Lisa to transform it into something I can copyright it as my own work?"

No. No it’s not. The fact you still can’t understand the difference between controlling an image with tools and asking an AI to do everything for you is pretty dang clear. Your logic resides entirely on the user doing everything which is not how art works. Many, many, many, MANY pieces of art do not involve the artist doing anything except setting up the initial conditions and seeing what happens. Since your beliefs hinge so heavily on the fact that you think the artist has to control all aspects of the creation you are refusing to even notice that copyright has held up for these cases, cases not involving AI at all, cases hundreds of years old.

Of course if they want to lose their copyright, then they are free to tell everyone that they didn't really have any control over the output. See: Monkey selfie.

And here we see you misunderstanding why the monkey selfie wasn’t copyrightable. It was not because the artist didn’t control the output. It was because non-humans cannot hold copyright. This is the true reason that AI art shouldn’t be copyrightable. But even legal experts agree that if he had taken it to court that he would have gotten copyright on the monkey selfie. https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction

Your logic around this is not only flawed, it’s just absolutely incorrect and has been shown to be incorrect in court. Control of the artist is not the only arbiter of copyright and you seem to not even have a basic grasp of how basic features like content aware delete in Photoshop even work. I can guess pretty solidly that you have never touched Photoshop nor bothered with something like control net in order to understand the implications of their use as a tool in art are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

content aware delete

I didn't say anything about "content aware delete"

every single photo touched

You still haven't grasped that copyright can be applied to some elements of a photo, but not others.

user doing everything

I've said many times that copyright protects the creative decisions in a work, which you can't seem to distinguish from "doing everything".

monkey selfie

Now explain why Andy Warhol could not claim copyright over "Orange Prince". It has nothing to do with nonhumans or AI.

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with creative decisions. Or lack thereof.

[–] tyler 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your logic is just absolutely horrendous and outright wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation.

If you want to make sure AI art can’t be copyrighted there are other actual logical reasons that I’ve already covered. Arguing with you when you clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about is incredibly annoying though so I’m gonna wish you a good day.

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

On the contrary, I'm just repeating what courts have already ruled.

You're the one spreading misinformation. For instance, you just suggested using AI to delete something would invalidate copyright over the rest of the image, which is simply nonsense.